[This is a
collection of information on the Occupy Central movement/revolution (also known
as the Umbrella movement/revolution) in Hong Kong. This is not comprehensive
coverage by any means. Many perspectives are already available in abundance in
English (see, for example, Reddit on
Umbrella Revolution), so there is no need for me to duplicate them here.
Instead, the focus here is on popular Chinese-language materials that are not
otherwise available in English. Most of the information is gathered from
mainstream media, social media (Facebook, YouTube, discussion forums (mainly
Hong Kong Discussion Forum, Hong Kong Golden Forum, HKGalden, Uwants and Baby
Kingdom), blogs and polling data). The YouTube/Facebook videos have people
speaking in the Cantonese dialect and the discussion forums often use uniquely
Hong Kong Internet language that is not even comprehensible to mainland Chinese
citizens. My contribution is to compile and translate into English these
otherwise unknown materials to provide a fuller view of

A letter containing a death threat and a
blade has been sent to Youngspiration politician Baggio Leung Chung-hang.
Leung wrote that I have seen this on TV a lot, but I have never expected
that this would happen to me one day.

The letter, which was poorly rendered in
simplified Chinese, read: Ask your parents to cook you something good, you
will not have long to live  whomever is anti-communist, [we] will kill you,
you must die! It was signed by an underground party red army warrior.

Leung wrote on Facebook asking the
sender to please write in clearer handwriting and do not use simplified
characters, otherwise the one you are threatening will not be able to
understand your threat. Leung said he was concerned for himself and his
family, asking those who were threatening him to target him only, and not
his family.

The last line of the letter read: You must
report this to the police. Leung wrote that he was still considering
whether to do so or not.

- He has no remaining value left. Who
is going to something that is valueless?

- Frankly, what value do you have
such that someone would threaten you? ... You are a wastrel already,
so it makes no sense! The razor was wasted.

- Please, you animal, citizens won't
waste the money on the razor and stamp on you. STOP PLAY-ACTING
ANYMORE!

- You don't want to file a police
report, because filing a false report is a felony.

- In Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian at least
hired someone to shoot at him in order to gain the public sympathy to
win the presidential election. In Hong Kong, you already took $930,000
in salary and subsidies from the Legislative Council but all you want
to spend is for a razor, an envelop, a piece of paper and a stamp?

- Why would Leung Chung-hang fear
someone coming at him with a razor. At the Sai Wan demonstration, he
showed us that he can outsprint all other demonstrators plus the
Special Tactical Unit of the Hong Kong Police to grab a taxi and leave
the scene. http://news.tvb.com/local/581f7e066db28cb3572f497a.
So if someone comes at him with a razor, he is going to run away
easily. So there is nothing to worry about here.

- Dear Baggio Sixtus "Taxi" Leung
Chung-hang, your credibility has reached the bottom of the pit.
Whether this letter is real or not, you won't be able to derive any
political benefits. You can help yourself best by going into the
hiding and not remind people that you ever existed.

- Oy vay! Once again, we have the
existential dilemma of whether to file a police report or not. If you
believe that the Hong Kong Police are the poodles running errands for
the Chinese Communist grandpas, then it is a waste of time. If you
believe that the Hong Kong Police are serving to protect citizens and
properties, then why are you throwing bricks at them?

- You're upset with a threatening
letter with a razor blade? Where were you when these other incidents
took place:

The fallout from the disqualification
of a localist leader seeking to run in next months Legislative
Council elections took a worrying turn on Saturday when the returning
officer responsible for it got a threatening letter with a razor blade
enclosed.

The force did not
name the election officer targeted in the letter with the blade, only
confirming that a woman reported receiving the threat at her Sha Tin
office on Sheung Wo Che Road.

That is the
address of Cora Ho Lai-sheung, the returning officer who invalidated
Hong Kong ­Indigenous member Edward Leung Tin-keis candidacy for the
polls, to be held on September 4.

The letter
contained words that constitute a threat, police said, without
providing further details. The case is classified as one of criminal
intimidation after a preliminary inquiry. No arrest has been made.

Two returning officers who disqualified
four localists from running in the Legislative Council elections next
month have been threatened again - they received threatening letters and
"hell money" in their office mail. Cora Ho Lai-sheung for the New
Territories East constituency, whose office is on Wo Che Road in Sha
Tin, and Alan Lo Ying-ki for New Territories West, on Hing Fong Road in
Kwai Chung, received mail containing their pictures with a Chinese
character "dead" in red and "hell money."

Police said they received the report
and listed the case as "request police assistance." No one has been
arrested. Officers from the New Territories South regional crime squad
are investigating.

It is the third time Ho has been
threatened in two weeks. She disqualified prominent localist and Hong
Kong Indigenous spokesman Edward Tin-kei, saying she "did not believe
Leung was sincere in changing his political stance." She also
disqualified localist James Chan Kwok-keung as a independent Legco
candidate.

Ho received a threatening letter with a
razor blade enclosed on August 6. Four days later she received a
threatening letter with some white powder, claimed to be a mixture of
HIV/AIDS, anthrax and semen. Police later confirmed that it was flour.

The Democratic Alliance for the
Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong's Elizabeth Quat's office at the
Legislative Council complex was sealed off after she received a letter
with suspicious white powder. Police sent a bomb squad to Legco.

Quat's office was sealed off for
investigation after she received the letter with suspicious white
powder. Police said the powder was believed to be flour after
preliminary investigation. The case was classified as suspicious object
found. The letter contained printed insulting words with no names.

Police received the report at around
3pm yesterday. No arrest had been made and the case is under
investigation by the Central Police District. "Hong Kong is a city under
rule of law," Quat said. "It is not acceptable for anyone to express
opinions through threats."

Hong Kong government officials and
pro-establishment politicians receive threatening letters containing razor
blades, white powder (alleged to be AIDS/anthrax) and human/canine feces all
the time. Do they stop going downstairs to buy a can of soda at the
convenience store? Do they call for 24-hours-a-day round-the-clock police
protection?

... This whole thing is highly
suspicious. It is clearly a farce staged by Leung Chung-hang. If it
were really so dangerous, then why didn't he file a police report? Why
did he only make a post on Facebook? What is the clown most afraid of
on stage? That the audience doesn't care or react. Therefore the clown
has to keep staging further acts in order to get the audience to
laugh. But at this point, not even a White Terror farce is going to
change the ending for Leung.

The so-called threatening letter is
preposterous in itself. What "Underground Party" is this? What
"warrior" is this? It is incomprehensible. A normal person would have
tossed away this so-called "threatening letter." In the past, many
pro-establishment legislators have received a large number of these
"threatening letters" signed by "Democracy warriors", "The Butcher of
Hong Kong", Japanese right-wing organizations, etc. This one is
nothing extraordinary. Only Leung Chung-hang wants to make it an
Internet cause célèbre and declare this to be a grave threat to
him and his family.

Why did Leung Chung-hang stage this
White Terror farce? Because he wants to reacquire public attention.
After the oath brouhaha, he has been completely wiped out. He lost his
legislator position, he lost public opinion support, he lost his
reputation, he lost everything. His crowdfunding campaign went
nowhere. If this continues, he is going to be drained dry. Therefore,
he is using this "threatening" letter to gain public sympathy about
the plight of him and his family.

- PLEASE! This letter was written
shoddily. Leung Chung-hang made the point that the letter was written
in the simplified Chinese characters used in mainland China, thus
implying that he is being threatened by mainlanders. For example, the
word "party" is written in the simplified character "党"
as opposed to the traditional character "黨".

In truth, the letter contains a mix
of simplified and traditional characters. For example, the word for
'several' is written in the traditional character "幾"
and not the simplified character "几".
This would support the theory that the letter was written by someone
who knows only how to write a few simplified characters but not
completely versed in the system. You know have to a police
investigator to figure out this much.

Even when you give them what you
think is a simple exercise, they always find a way to bungle it up.

Previously, Leung Chung-hang read his
Legco oath of office in English and pronounced "China" as "Shina
(Chee-na)." He gave the excuse that this was due to his Ap Lei Chau
accent. To date, he has not apologized.

A 40-second video has been posted
onto the Internet. In the video, Leung Chung-hang is walking down the
street wearing a grey hoodie with the hood over his head. Several
middle-aged men and women shouted "Real running dog" at him. "Do you
think that you look suave?" They clapped and said: "You are not longer
a Legislator." They demanded that he refund the money that he has
taken so far. During the whole time, Leung played with his mobile
phone and did not respond to these people.

In response to media inquiries, Leung
Chung-hang said that the incident took place two weeks ago shortly
after the oath of office.

This video taken by some aunties went viral
on the Internet. The aunties followed Leung Chung-hang down the street,
shouting: "Hey, hey, Shina! Turn yourself around, Shina!" When Leung
turned around, the auntie said: "We welcome you, Shina boy!" Leung
replied, "How are you?" Then he ignored the auntie and lowered his head to
fiddle with his mobile telephone. The auntie proceeded to curse him:
"Despicable!" "Running dog!" "Bastard", "Pok
gai", "Inhuman", etc.

Soon the aunties were joined by other people
around the scene. "Oh, he is the one who called us Shina!" "Pok
gai!" Leung said: "Go ahead and scold!" He almost ended up in a
physical fight with those present. But since he was outnumbered, he turned
around and ran. But he raised his middle finger in order to claim moral
victory.

- Unfortunately for Leung Chung-hang, his
ugly face is easily identifiable in public. As soon as he appears,
everybody is going to know that it's HIM. He could have to undergo major
cosmetic surgery to avoid recognition. Meanwhile, his partner-in-crime Yau
Wai-ching has the Mong Kok look of thousands of other young women. So it
is harder to detect her presence in public.

- Edward Leung is also readily identifiable
because of his weirdo hairstyle, with or without the recent bloating of
his body.

- Leung Chung-hang is a young man, so we
should all back off and take it easy on him.

- But did he ever back off and take it easy
on the people of Hong Kong? Why did he do all these things to push Hong
Kong into the abyss?

- The court is lenient when the defendant
shows remorse. Have Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching shown any sign of
remorse over saying "Re-fucking of Shina"?

- It is time for the
American/British/Japanese/Australian/Canadian/German consulates to step
forth and defend the freedom of speech of Leung Chung-hang and Yau
Wai-ching!

- It is time for the people of Hong Kong to
step forth and defend the freedom of speech of the uncles and aunties
shown in the videos!

Chief Executive
Leung Chun-ying launched an all-out legal offensive against the
pro-democracy camp on Friday, moving to have four more of its
lawmakers disqualified over improper oath-taking.

His latest
targets accused Leung of staging a coup to overturn election results
and score with Beijing for a possible second term, but the justice
minister insisted the bid to have them kicked out of the Legislative
Council was free of political consideration.

Their supporters
marched from Legco to the Chief Executives Office last night to
protest, while civic groups are planning a bigger rally on New Years
Day.

The government announced on Friday
that it had commenced legal proceedings against veteran activist
Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law
Kwun-chung, academic Edward Yiu Chung-yim and lecturer Lau Siu-lai,
asking the High Court to declare their oaths invalid and their Legco
seats vacant. None of them have advocated Hong Kong independence,
although Law and Lau have called for self-determination.

The governments move came two days
after an appeal court upheld the lower courts decision to disqualify
pro-independence lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung
Chung-hang, applying Beijings controversial interpretation of the
Basic Law to require oaths to be taken sincerely and accurately.

Secretary for
Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung denied any political persecution behind
the new wave of civil suits and judicial reviews against the four,
saying his department had consulted with senior counsel from outside
and the government respected the fact that the lawmakers were
democratically elected.

That is an
important factor, Yuen said. However, it is equally important that
all Legco members should act in accordance with the law. The legal
action has absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing or overturning
the intention and wishes of the voters.

The government
also issued a statement stressing it had the duty to implement the
citys mini-constitution and check if lawmakers complied with its
oath-taking requirements.

The Justice
Departments representatives submitted their application to the High
Court in Admiralty just 10 minutes before it closed for the day.

In the writs,
the government accused the four lawmakers of turning their swearing-in
ceremony on October 12 into a political tool to display their own
agenda, thereby declining to take the oath. It took reference from
the first oath-taking court case, involving Yau and Baggio Leung, to
argue the court would be bound by the Beijing interpretation which
required immediate disqualification in case of non-compliance with
oath-taking requirements.

Leung Kwok-hung said the government
was mounting a coup détat as it seeks to change the peoples
political choice. He said he would have to resort to crowdfunding to
pay his legal bill.

Law accused the chief executive of
waging total war against all democrats and all voters supporting
democracy. Lau and Yiu were worried the lawsuit would have a chilling
effect on other opposition lawmakers, adding that the chief executive
was trying to please Beijing and seek a second term.

Leung Kwok-hung, Law and Lau, along
with disqualified pair Yau and Baggio Leung, won a combined 183,236
votes in Septembers elections in the geographical constituency. Yiu,
who represents the architectural and surveying functional
constituency, bagged 2,491 votes.

If all three lost their seats, their
camp would no longer keep its 17-16 majority in the constituency,
which is necessary for them to vote down motions they oppose.

At the swearing-in session, Leung
Kwok-hung took his oath holding a yellow umbrella  an Occupy symbol 
and chanted slogans such as We need no approval from the Chinese
Communist Party! He also tore up a copy of the controversial
political reform framework decreed by Beijing on August 31, 2014.

Law raised his
intonation when saying the word Republic in Peoples Republic of
China, as if asking a question.

Yiu inserted
this sentence in his oath: I will uphold procedural justice in Hong
Kong, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve the citys
sustainable development.

Lau paused for
six seconds between every word of her oath. She later wrote on
Facebook that she had meant to render the statement meaningless.

On October 12, 2016,
Lau Siu-lai preceded her oath with these words: "I, Lau Siu-lai, promise
that when I go from the streets into the Legislative Council, I will
continue with the spirit of self-determination in the Umbrella Movement to
walk with the people of Hong Kong. I will unite with those inside and
outside the Legislative Council to oppose the authoritarian regime. We
will live in honesty and openness; we will break through coldness and
indifference and create the road to democratic self-determination. We will
topple the tall wall, determine our own fates and make ourselves strong."

Then she proceeded
to read out the oath of office at the slow speed of six seconds per word.
Her oath lasted 10 minutes. Afterwards, she said: "Fight for universal
pension; implement the policies for marketplaces; defend the dignity in
the lives of the people of Hong Kong." She took up a total of 13 minutes
for the entire process. At the time, the Legislative Council
secretary-general Chan Wai-On who administered the oath did not react.

Afterwards, Lau
Siu-lai posted on Facebook under the title: <Slow reading was used to show
the absurdity of the oath>: "I read the official oath word by word. The
oath became more than 90 unconnected words without any coherence,
relationship or meaning. The audience cannot grasp any sentence or tone.
In this way, the audience can determine their own meaning based upon their
subjective speculations. This is done in order to show the hypocrisy of
business-as-usual ... the fluent articulated oath is hypocritical, the
harmonious legislature is also hypocritical." She added: ""What I said
before the oath is the more honest version."

After receiving
complaints and reviewing the video recording, Legco president Andrew Leung
declared the oath to be invalid and administered the oath again on
November 2. On that occasion, Lau Siu-lai read the oath at a normal pace.

On October 12, Yiu
Chung-yim read the oath until he completed the part of pledging allegiance
to the People's Republic of China. At that point, he inserted "I will
supoport the Hong Kong system, fight for genuine universal suffrage and
serve towards sustainable development in Hong Kong." Afterwards the Legco
secretary-general Chan Wai-on said that Yiu had altered the oath and
demanded Yiu to retake his oath.

Yiu then proceeded
to read the oath. Upon completing the oath, he added: "I will supoport the
Hong Kong system, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve towards
sustainable development in Hong Kong." At the time, Legco
secretary-general Chan Wai-on said that Yiu had altered the oath and told
him to return to his seat. Later Legco president Andrew Leung rules that
Yiu's oath was invalid. At Yiu's request, the oath was administered again
on October 19.

At the oath
ceremony, Leung Kwok-hung wore a shirt for "civil disobedience." He held
an umbrella with slogans such as "End one-party tyranny" and a prop that
represents the August 31st decision of the National People's Congress. As
he proceeded, he shouted slogans such as "Umbrella Movement, no yielding,
no concessions," "I want double universal suffrage" and "Down with CY
Leung" etc.

His oath was broken
up with 29 pauses that averaged 2 seconds each, including a pause between
"the Chinese People's" and "Republic" as well as racing through another
"People's Republic of China." After the oath, he shouted: "Rescind the
National People's Congress August 31st resolution, I want double universal
suffrage, the people will determine their own futures without needing the
permission of the Chinese Communists." He tore up his paper prop that
represents the August 31st decision of the National People's Congress and
littered the pieces onto the ground.

At the time, the
Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on did not react. Later Legco president
Andrew Leung did not address the matter.

Before reading out
the oath on October 12, Nathan Law aid that the English term for the oath
was "affirmation" whose Latin meaning was being more firm and resolute. He
said that the oath is a solemn rite, but the rite has "degenerated into a
tool for the authorities" "that compels the popularly elected
representatives to bend under the system and its authoritarianism." He
said that he had to complete this required procedure, "but it does not
mean that I submit myself to authoritarianism." He said that he "will not
pledge allegiance to a regime that murders its own people" and that
"change begins with resistance."

During his reading
of the oath, he read "pledge allegiance to the People's Republic of
China(?)" in the tone of a question as opposed to a statement. After
reading the oath, he shouted: "Power to the people, tyranny will persih!"
At the time, the Legislative Council Chan Wai-On did not react.
Afterwards, Legco president Andrew Leung ruled that Nathan Law's oath was
valid.

Internet comments:

- SCMP reported:
"Their supporters marched from Legco to the Chief Executives Office last
night to protest." How many were there? Hundreds of thousands?

(Wen
Wei Po) The opposition camp gathered outside the Legislative Council
building tonight to protest the government's judicial review against Lau
Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law and Yiu Chung-yim. Only 100 citizens
showed up. Lau Siu-lai told them that she is not the only victim, that the
four legislators are not the only victims, but that the people of Hong Kong
are the victims.

Here goes, although this may not seem the
ideal time to express renewed hope and faith in the resiliency of Hong
Kong and the one country, two systems mantra that is supposed to protect
our special status in China until 2047.

After all, two duly elected legislators
just got tossed out of the Legislative Council for insulting the mainland,
and the positions of four others are now threatened by fresh legal action
taken last week by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for
Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung.

Recall that the chief executive and his
justice minister were also the source of an earlier judicial review that
resulted in the ouster of the Youngspiration duo, Sixtus Baggio Leung and
Yau Wai-ching, after they deliberately botched their oaths during last
months LegCo swearing-in ceremony. Now the Leung administrationthanks to
another noxious interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing
Committee of the National Peoples Congress that has turned oath-taking
into a test of patriotism encompassing the oath-takers pace, tone and any
accompanying propsis licking its chops in hopes of catching out other
troublesome pan-democratic lawmakers for their stunts of protest, even
though their oaths (unlike those of the Youngspiration pair) were accepted
by LegCo president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen.

The latest targets, with perhaps more to
come, are newly elected lawmakers Lau Siu-lai, Dr Edward Yiu Chung-yim and
Nathan Law Kwun-Chung as well as that longstanding government nemesis and
protester extraordinaire, Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung.

With six pan-dem seats vacated by court
order, pro-government lawmakers would rule the roost and the Leung
administrationand, by extension, the powers-that-be in Beijingcould have
their way in Hong Kongs legislature. Moreover, if Leung is successful in
this legislative coup, its hard to imagine how he wouldnt be Beijings
favoured candidate in next Marchs small-circle CE election by committee.
Thus, in addition to witnessing the purge of its legislature, the city
could also quite possibly see the singularly divisive, widely reviled
purger reinstated for five more years.

Yes, this is a nightmare scenario for
everyone who cares about free speech, democracy and judicial independence
in Hong Kong. Indeed, it would mark the end of any meaningful system of
checks and balances in Hong Kong politics.

Awful. Horrible. Appalling.

Which makes it all the more important to
keep the faith and to neither give up nor give in to apathy or despair.
This is not the time to write off Hong Kong.

History has shown again and again that,
in a crisis, the people of this city rise to the challenge. First there
was the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that sealed their fate under
the future sovereignty of a communist dictatorship; five years later came
the gut-wrenching shock of the June 4, Tiananmen Square massacre, which
made that historic deal look like the kiss of death.

But then the handover came and the
handover went Hong Kong adapted and persevered.

Before Leung became CE, we suffered
through the lacklustre examples of Tung Chee-hwa and Donald Tsang Yam-kuen
as post-handover leadersbut the citys vibrant pulse kept beating.

If there is one thing Hong Kong has
proven since the handover 19 years ago, its that the people of this city
are far stronger and better than their purported leaders. And therein you
can place your hope and faith in the future. Given all that Hong Kong has
overcome in the past, surely it can survive the lupine leadership of CY
Leung and the shambolic Youngspiration debacle.

As events push forward, however, we must
hope the citys courtswhich were standing on solid legal ground in
denying LegCo seats to the Youngspiration pair after they transformed
their oaths into a histrionic pro-independence performancewill not go
that dangerous step beyond and invalidate any oath imbued with an
improvisational protest.

While the NPC Standing Committees
interpretation may allow for such a punitive approach, lets count on
independent Hong Kong judges not to take the bait.

If they do, of course, its time to hit
the streets againand in bigger-than-ever numbers.

The oath-taking fiasco leading to the
disqualification of two pro-independence lawmakers has intensified. Just
when the legislature is struggling to restore order and stability following
the saga, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky
Yuen Kwok-keung have again asked the court to remove another four opposition
members on the grounds that they had failed to take their oaths of office
according to the law.

The government may think that it is only
fair to oust those who have not sworn themselves in properly, especially
after the states top legislative body stepped in with an interpretation of
the relevant provision in the Basic Law. But the move to unseat more
pro-democracy lawmakers has raised the stakes even higher, so much so that
it may backfire and fuel more uncertainty. Speculation has been growing ever
since as many as 15 lawmakers were deemed by Beijing as having failed to
swear in properly under the law. Instead of invalidating them in one fell
swoop, the judicial review only targeted Edward Yiu Chung-yim of the
architectural sector and three directly elected members, Lau Siu-lai, Leung
Kwok-hung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung.

The government must have thoroughly
considered the legal merits and the possible consequences before taking such
a controversial step. According to the writ, the four should be disqualified
as they had made political statements or showed insincerity when taking
their oaths. The justice secretary stresses that the move is not politically
motivated, but critics see it as the chief executives plot to drum up
support for a possible re-election bid. They also warned that the opposition
bloc could lose its critical presence in Legco that keeps the government in
check.

Leungs step is in line with the hawkish
approach adopted by Beijing on the oath-taking saga. But it risks upsetting
the 130,000 voters who returned the four members. Confusion arose on Monday
after the finance chief declared that the government would not answer
questions from the four for the time being. The statement even surprised the
pro-Beijing camp, which feared that it would fuel more tension in Legco. The
government made a U-turn hours later, saying their questions would be
answered.

Whether the four should be thrown out is
now a matter for the court to decide. We trust our judges will rule
according to the law. The Court of Appeal has expounded the legal principles
when upholding the lower courts ruling to remove the two lawmakers. It is
to be hoped that the new lawsuit can clarify what sort of behaviour is
unacceptable during swearings-in for public office.

- (SCMP)
Hong Kong courts are the proper place to hear governments case against
lawmakers, whatever the pan-democrats think. By John Chan. December 8, 2016.

The Chinese term pang men zuo dao (旁門左道)
is often used to describe the dirty tricks or unorthodox means employed to
meet a goal. Speaking on the governments move to file judicial reviews
against four lawmakers, asking the court to declare their oaths invalid
and their Legislative Council seats vacant, veteran lawmaker and senior
solicitor James To Kun-sun described it as Chief Executive Leung Chun-yings
pang men zuo dao.

This stupid comment is typical of the
many pan-democratic legislators and supporters who are all but blinded by
their hatred of Leung and their instinctive opposition to the government.

Tos comment has
smeared a proper and legal manoeuvre and, in doing so, insulted the
judiciary and the rule of law. Judicial reviews are a legitimate tool
available to everyone to redress the wrongdoings of those in power. It is
up to our independent judiciary to decide whos right and whos wrong. No
one has the right to criticise a citizen, including the chief executive,
for exercising such a right.

Many pan-democrats
appear to believe that judicial reviews are a legal tool for the exclusive
use of the pan-democrats in such causes as delaying the progress of the
bridge linking Hong Kong with Zhuhai and Macau.

Last month, Hong Kongs last British
governor, Chris Patten, said bluntly to a roomful of current and former
pan-democratic lawmakers and supporters, as well as pro-independence
supporters, that advocating independence for Hong Kong undermines the moral
high ground gained in the democracy movement. He said it gives Beijing an
excuse to label a push for democracy separatist. He said
self-determination is little different from independence and attempting to
differentiate the two is just playing with words.

It was no surprise that Patten launched
an all-out attack on pro-independent undertakings. What did embarrass the
pan-democrats was that, as a champion of democracy and rule of law, Patten
made no comment on the recent move by Beijing to interpret the Basic Law,
or the Hong Kong governments application for judicial review proceedings
against the two localist lawmakers-elect.

Instead, Patten criticised the behaviour
of Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, saying that
oath-taking should not be taken lightly. Patten knows well that Beijings
interpretation of the Basic Law and the judicial reviews against lawmakers
who did not take oaths sincerely have a solid constitutional and legal
basis.

Tos dislike of the chief executive does
not alter the fact that such moves are proper.

- As usual, the whole thing is being
presented as part of the re-election campaign of CY Leung. If so, his
campaign co-opted Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Leung Kwok-hung and Nathan Law
to play their parts according to the written script. If CY Leung can pull
that off, he could have done a whole lot more of other things.

The real point here is that these four
people brought it all upon themselves. They think that the Legislative
Council is a place for performance art, they went too far and now they may
have to pay the price. That is the whole story.

- If they want to blame someone, it is
going to be Rita Fan and Jasper Tsang who were the two previous Legco
presidents. Fan and Tsang allowed shenanigans during the oath of office to
go unpunished. At first, the transgressions were truly petty such as
coughing at critical points. As time goes by, the legislators felt that they
have to outdo others in order to get on television news. Leung Chung-hang
and Yau Wai-ching said that they had reviewed past videos before embarking
on their groundbreaking actions. But they misjudged the consequences, and
caused a global backlash by insulting all persons of Chinese descent.

- Everything is about timing and
sequencing. If the only case was one of these four legislators, nothing much
would come out of it. The legislator would be made to re-take the oath.
That's all. Unfortunately the situation here began with Leung Chung-hang and
Yau Wai-ching who caused a global backlash that led to a National People's
Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. The
matter can no longer be swept under the rug. Once Leung and Yau were ousted
in court, the actions of the others come under microscopic scrutiny. Under
Common Law, precedents mean everything. Once the precedent was set,
everything else follows automatically. Case closed.

Localist Edward Leung said he would be
going to Harvard University in January as a research assistant and
continue his studies for a postgraduate program if possible.

Leung, a member of Hong Kong Indigenous
party, said he hopes he can explore more opportunities in the United
States before his judicial review in January 2018 on his
disqualification to run for the legislature in September,
standnews.com reports.

In a webcast Tuesday, Leung said he has
not made a public appearance since the oath-taking fiasco involving
Youngspirations Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching. He denied
being behind Sixtus Leung and Yau as a puppet master during their
swearing-in saga but said they should have the freedom to make their
own decisions.

On Monday, Edward Leung clashed with
former governor Chris Patten during a University of Hong Kong forum in
which the latter said independence is not the answer to Hong Kongs
problems. Leung said theres a need for persuasive tactics in pushing
a political concept, especially when most Hong Kong people are liberal
rather than radical.

As to the disqualified duo, Leung said
he is very sympathetic toward their status, regardless of what
others say. He said that now there is no clear timeline for a
revolution or a framework for making Hong Kong a country. Hong Kong
Indigenous as a group has no clear direction either, he said.

Leung said his Harvard research topic
will be a comparison between Hong Kong and Taiwans nativist movements
and independence activities as a tool to revolt against the
government.

Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of
Hong Kong, said on Monday that independence advocates are deluding
themselves and fractioning support for the citys democracy movement.

Hong Kong is a great city; its not a
nation-state. As a great city, you probably have a more intimate and
explicit sense of citizenship than pretty well anywhere else in Asia,
Patten said. But as soon as the argument moves from suffrage to
independence, you start to lose support. You start to lose support
internationally, and you start to lose support at home.

Patten made the remarks at a forum with
around 500 student audience members at the University of Hong Kong about the
territorys future.

HKU alum and localist politician Edward
Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous asked Patten at the forum: If we are going to
give up our sincere political views just to pacify the dictatorship, are we
trying to form another kind of controlocracy in Hong Kong?

The term controlocracy is
used by Oxford scholar Stein Ringen in his new book The Perfect
Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century to describe the sophisticated
dictatorship of China based on control.

Calling Leung dead wrong, Patten said:
Im not sure what exactly your plan is for overthrowing the Communist Party
in China, but let me tell you what my view is of China: Im a huge admirer
of China, of Chinese culture, of Chinese history, of Chinese art Im not a
great fan of Leninism and the Chinese Communist Party.

He said the China Liaison Office 
Beijings organ in Hong Kong  often confuses Chinese civilisation and
leadership in its statements.

If you think that here in Hong Kong, in
the next [two to five years], you can overthrow the Chinese Communist Party,
and that Hong Kong can become independent, I just think youre deluding
yourself, Patten said. You may be deluding yourself for good reasons, it
may be very easy to make good and very eloquent, fiery speeches  and which
understandably get applause  but I dont think youre giving your
colleagues very smart advice.

The ex-governor said he wanted to hear
localists say things which would ensure that people around the world
continue to admire Hong Kongs democracy movement as they did during the
2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. It is important to know when to cash in
your moral chips, he said.

Patten criticised the independence-leaning
camp for fractioning and minimising support for Hong Kong while risking
what you want to achieve ending calamitously.

Id be sad  genuinely sad  if the
argument about democracy was diverted into another stream where I think it
would simply run away into the sand, he said.

Patten added: Im not saying this because
Im a wimp. Im not saying this because my support for democracy in Hong
Kong has weakened. Im saying this because I dont want to see the case of
democracy weakened by introducing another element into the whole debate
which I just dont think is going to take off. So I respect the strength of
your convictions, but I just happen to think you are wrong.

In August this year, Edward Leung's
nomination in the New Territories East Legco election was nullified by
the Returning Election Officer who was not convinced that he would
uphold the Basic Law. Edward Leung immediately announced Plan B
whereupon his group Hong Kong Indigenous would ally with Youngspration
to field Leung Chung-hang in New Territories East district and Yau
Wai-ching in Kowloon West election.

Youngspiration does not have any
local precinct captains to get the vote out. If they had gone their
own way, they may find it hard to get into the Legislative Council
because their sole credential is being novices. Leung Chung-hang and
Yau Wai-ching stated publicly that, if elected, they will share the
Legco resources with Hong Kong Indigenous, including the salaries and
operational allowances. They also promised to hire Hong Kong
Indigenous members as their Legco aides. As the Shadow Warrior (Kagemusha)
for Edward Leung, Leung Chung-hang thanked "Brother Kei" for his
assistance during the campaign.

But after Leung Chung-hang and Yau
Wai-ching got elected to the Legislative Council, all the promises got
tossed away. Before they moved into the Legco offices, they had
announced that they would knock down the office walls to have one big
room with no designated seating in order to work as one group. But
once reality sunk in, they decided that they could do everything as
Yougnspiration without any help from outsiders.

Edward Leung declared that he would
have no part in the actual legislative work because he needed to spend
more time to prepare for graduate studies. He said that he would only
act as an advisor. This arrangement was different from what
Youngspiration and Hong Kong Indigenous had agreed upon before the
election. But since the world was now focused on Leung Chung-hang and
Yau Wai-ching, nobody paid too much attention to this subtle shift.

In early October, Leung Chung-hang
and Yau Wai-ching began to think about what to do at the Legco oath of
office ceremony. They wanted to use the opportunity to promote
Hong Kong independence in the Legislative Council. Based upon the
prior examples of Leung Kwok-hung and others, they believe that even
if their oaths were not immediately affirmed, there will be always be
a second opportunity. Since the cost is zero, they can go as far as
they can to justify their election to their supporters. Since they are
already elected, they don't have to worry about the Returning Election
Officers nullifying their nominations anymore.

Previously Ray Wong of Hong Kong
Indigenous said on Internet radio that they recommended to Leung
Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to use the oath of office to promote Hong
Kong independence. But they did not expect that Yau Wai-ching would
accept the recommendation of her aides to say the "People's Re-fucking
of Shina" in the oath. In the end, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching
went too far. Ray Wong implied that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching
acted on their own and failed to follow the recommendation from Hong
Kong Indigenous exactly. Thus, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have
only themselves to blame.

But the outside world has no way of
knowing whether someone else made that recommendation and, once it
blew up, shifted the blame upon certain unidentified legislative
council aides.

As the advisor of Leung Chung-hang
and Yau Wai-ching, Edward Leung curiously maintained total silence as
the storm swirled. As the traditional pan-democrats and even the
localist self-determination groups turned against the two, Leung
Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching failed to recognize the trouble that they
are in. On October 22, they decided to issue a call for action to
demonstrate about "defending the separation of the three powers, and
restoring dignity to the legislative branch" outside the Legislative
Council. They wanted to show the world that they still have huge
support out there. But only 20 to 30 people showed up, fewer than the
number of reporters present. The demonstrators were from other
post-Umbrella groups and also some regular demonstrators. Hong Kong
Indigenous did not mobilize their supporters to go.

Faced with this situation, Leung
Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching finally woke up. They asked the spectator
Edward Leung for mobilize Hong Kong Indigenous and other
pro-independence groups to help, but their calls went unheeded.

Actually, while this was going on,
Edward Leung was traveling overseas to study for the General
Certificate of Secondary Education (United Kingdom) in order to
prepare himself for a masters degree and/or research. No wonder Edward
Leung was absent during the three incidents (1) the demonstration at
the Legislative Council after the first oath ceremony; (2) the
intrusion into the Legislative Council to take the second "oath" on
their own; (3) the assault on the China Liaison Office to oppose the
National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic
Law Article 104. Only Ray Wong showed upon at the third incident and
perched on an electrical box to issue orders at zero cost.

Actually, the watermelon trick worked
because the Hong Kong University SPACE Student Union suddenly
announced that Edward Leung will make an appearance at a discussion
forum on December 5 about youth participation in politics.

When Edward Leung came back to Hong
Kong, he had gained one size in body weight. Apart from attending the
talk given by former governor Chris Patten, he also appeared on his
own Channel-I Internet program to discuss the oath incident with Ray
Wong. Edward Leung said that the consequences of the oath incident
were unexpected. He said that he was "sorry" that he did not stay in
Hong Kong to help Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. He said that he
did not manipulate the two legislators in the capacity of the boss
behind the scenes. He said that that Leung Chung-hang and Yau
Wai-ching are autonomous beings in front of the curtain.

During the programme, Edward Leung
said that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have a huge legal bill to
pay and may end up bankrupt. They have sacrificed themselves in the
pro-independence movement, in a way that is "quite sad" and
"irreversible." An audience member called in to accuse Edward Leung of
being irresponsible for killing off the Localism while using the need
to study as an excuse. Edward Leung laughed and said that when the
Localists kicked tourists' suitcases and make children cry, "did they
ever have any good image to speak of"?

Edward Leung said that he is
preparing to take the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE),
which was established in 1986 to replace the GCE O Level. This is the
joint exam for secondary school students in the United Kingdom.
Previously, Edward Leung studied philosophy at the Hong Kong
University but apparently he did not get his degree. So how is the
GCSE going to get him into a masters program at an overseas
university? So far Edward Leung has only stated that he plans to
become a "researcher" at Harvard University come January next year and
possibly in a masters program related to politics.

Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward
Leung spoke to us about the Legco oath incident and the Basic Law Article
104 interpretation. Leung apologized several times to his supporters about
Youngpsiration losing their two Legco seats so quickly. Leung said that he
has no plans to enter any by-election or to offer his support to any
candidates.

After the election, Leung acted an advisor
to Youngspiration, but he was unaware about how Leung Chung-hang and Yau
Wai-ching planned to do with their oaths.

Internet comments:

- Which one of these sayings of
Edward Leung do you find to be the funniest?

(1) I have already given up thoughts
about life and death.

(2) I am merely a fresh grad.

(3) I am cowardly and I don't want to
go back into the detention centre

(4) Resistance requires having no
bottom line.

(5) Revolution is our duty.

(6) If someday I am no longer being
myself, you should take me down.

- Famous last words:

Edward Leung, you have already
apologized on your program. I and my friends will continue to support
you.
Baggio Leung Chung-hang, you are already thirty years old. You need to
accept responsibility for the extras that you added in your oath.

- This screen capture was given the
hashtag #StupidCunt.

- Hey, is this the same guy who
posted 信天琦，撐青政("Trust
Edward Leung and support Youngspiration") months ago?

- Wan Chin's Facebook

In Chinese and western societies,
a guarantor must be reputable and responsible ... the guarantor must
monitor and guarantee that his subject does not get into trouble. Once
things go wrong, he must act immediately to put a stop to it. The
guarantor may be putting his own life and wealth a risk.

Edward Leung guaranteed two
Youngspiration candidates to run. After they got into trouble, Leung
hid in the background. Even after the National People's Congress
Standing Committee interpreted the Basic Law and destroyed
constitutional rule in Hong Kong, he pretended that nothing has
happened. After the appeal of Youngspiration was rejected, he finally
trotted out to say that he is a fresh grad, that he intends to study
at Harvard and that he has nothing to do with any of this. This type
of immoral person is the shame of Hong Kong. We must reflect on why
Hong Kong is hell on earth for producing such young people and having
so many people sympathizing with such young people.

- I just finished watching Edward
Leung and Ray Wong on
Channel-I, and I have these questions:

When so many things have happened in
Hong Kong,

(1) You need to study in preparation
for taking the GRE (Graduate Record Examinations) and therefore you
can't even find the time to record a few video clips to state your
response?

(2) You have to file applications to
masters programs as well as take care of a few thousand other things,
which is why you can't find the time. I would like to know where the
Hong Kong Revolution that you propose ranks in your scheme of things?
#1? #7? #463?

(3) You said that you are
merely a university graduate, so we should not be asking you about
strategies of nation-building ... so when you fucking criticized other
people's strategies of nation-building before, you actually didn't
know shit?

(4) You say that the people of Hong
Kong only want to watch the show and therefore they don't genuinely
support Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. That's very funny! It is okay
for you to be busy with your studies. Meanwhile the people of Hong
Kong are known for being very busy -- they can only attend
demonstrations on Sunday, assemblies must be held after 8pm, etc and
that is why they can't come out to support Leung/Yau ... they are
exactly like you!!!

- First, we thought that Plan B
(Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching) was a mess. Now we learn that Plan A
(Edward Leung Tin-kei) was fucked up!

- During the election, we heard about
the Generational Revolution: "Can't say it. Don't ask. Just believe."
But today Edward Leung came back to us with a broad smile on his face:
"Does anyone have a roadmap to genuine universal suffrage?" "I am
merely a fresh university grad. Just twenty fucking something years
old. You ask me for nation-building strategies? Sorry, I am not able
to do it." "Study some more. Begin to do research. Let me see if I can
write something."

- At the HKU SPACE forum on December
5th, an audience member asked Edward Leung: "You endorsed Leung
Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for the Legislative Council. Afterwards
they created the oath incident and the NPCSC interpretation. Do you
feel that you have any responsibility?" Edward Leung replied: "I feel
that after those two got into the Legislative Council, I should not
control them." Hahaha! Edward Leung spoke as if he has nothing
whatsoever to do with Leung/Yau. As Internet users say, "Heads I win,
tails you lose."

- At the HKU SPACE forum, Edward
Leung said: "I have no plans for the future of Hong Kong. I want to
concentrate on studying. To a certain extent, I am trying to escape
reality ... therefore I am going to study." The other discussant Tim
Kwai asked Leung: "How come we have to ask the outsider Chris Patten
about Hong Kong independence?" Leung became quiet.

- NOW TV

"I feel that I am very much
useless. A lot of time I give empty talk. I don't really have any
solid theoretical foundations underneath. Therefore I choose to go
study."

Now you tell us that everything about
"Generational Revolution" was empty talk that is not grounded in any
theoretical basis.

- Election campaign poster of Edward
LeungNo matter how strong our opponents may be
As long as we are not cowardly anymore
We will bravely challenge authoritarianism
And then Hong Kong will ultimately become a place that belongs to
Hongkongers

- And when authoritarianism became
reality, he said: "To resist the National People's Congress Standing
Committee interpreting the Basic Law ... I don't know how to get to
the very front. I chose to say nothing ... I am cowardly, I don't
want to be sent back to the detention centre now."

Bravely challenge authoritarianism?
It is either that or else go to study at Harvard University.

- Edward Leung speaks, during the
election campaign for the February 2016 by-election

The fruits of democracy are fed not
with water but by blood and sweat
Therefore I am psychologically prepared
To give up any consideration of life versus death.

- Edward Leung spoke at a Hong Kong
National Party rally several months ago. Those were fine words back
then, but now he says that he has no idea what he was talking about.

- Poster: When tyranny becomes
reality, I will apply to study at Harvard

- Edward Leung said: "When I advocate
now, I am unable to go in the very front. This is different from how I
used to do things. So this becomes a case of telling others to do what
I won't do. I don't want it to be like this. That is why I choose to
say nothing at all."

Ray Wong: "I am currently out of bail
for the riot charge. If I should get re-arrested, I will be remanded
to custody until the riot trial begins in 2018. Even if I cannot be on
the frontline, there are different posts at the scene, such as
transmitting information from the front line to get material supplies
from the rear. Different people can play different roles at different
times. Right now I am unable to be at the frontline, but I still want
to do what I can. This newspaper report said that Ray Wong is telling
others to charge but won't do so himself."

In fewer words, we can quote
Edward Leung to summarize what Ray Wong is doing: "Ray Wong told
others to do what he won't do himself." PERIOD.

- Chau Yau Luan's Facebook

Before the election, he used the term
"Generational Revolution." He said that voting for Leung Chung-hang
was the same as voting for Edward Leung because he has known
Youngspiration for a long time, and the Key Opinion Leaders (KOL's)
said that the trust can be transferred across accounts. After the
election, they thought that they were in heaven. And then "Re-fucking
Shina" set fire to the powder keg. As soon as things went awry, he
dove deep under the water. After a while, he re-surfaced as fat as a
floating corpse. "How to carry out the Generational Revolution? I
haven't figure out the answer yet. I must study first. Leung/Yau
messed up? I did not anticipate it. It is none of my business."

It is the grand project of the people
of Hong Kong to let fucking assholes like these and other KOL's gain
power.

- Do Chan's Facebook

I have never regretted having
supported Edward Leung. I am glad that I stopped supporting him
after 2/28. When Edward Leung went from revolutionary martyr back to
an ordinary choice, it was his choice. I do not have the right to
make him to continue to do whatever. But before he retires, he needs
to do two things: (1) issue a formal apology; (2) announce his
retirement and decline all future interviews. Right now, he is just
sharing his cowardice with the media. This is irresponsible and
lowly. However, Hongkongers seem to buy into it. You jump in, you
bail out and all you have to say is "I'm a coward."

Is sharing his cowardice the same
as apologizing? Fuck! You don't even fucking know what an apology is.
Has he apologized? Has he acknowledged his errors? Who did he
apologize to? No. He did not apologize to anyone. He is only selling
his own personal tragedy when he confesses to cowardice.

Compared to the political
celebrities in the eye of the storm, I detest the Key Opinion Leaders
even more. If they did not lend support to spin spin spin,
Leung-Leung-Yau would have moved on leaving a space after they screwed
up. But now, the KOL's help them with all sorts of excuses. At this
point, even admitting your own defects has become a virtue. You see,
the people of Hong Kong are just trash. The fact is, when you screw
up, you should stand still and accept your punishment. There is no
need to make a big deal out of it.

For example, your company holds a
group meeting. That punk on their team made a presentation that
contains numerous mistakes. But you praise him for the beautiful font
styles in his presentation and his clear articulation of the
sentences. Well, you should have toss that team member out and feed
him to the dogs. As another example, your mother manages to travel
from her place to yours by bus, and you praise her for such a
marvelous accomplishment. Are you fucking stupid?

- Sau Wai Chan's Facebook

Frankly, it is cool to be prosecuted
for rioting and still be able to go overseas to study.
If you want to scoot and seek political asylum, please say so
honestly. A lot of people will understand.
What theory are you talking about? Everybody is waiting for your
Generational Revolution. Nobody is waiting for you to become a
theoretician.

Back then, you said with
conviction that the permanent continuation of the Basic Law would not
work? Now it turns about that you are just a fresh grad? And even you
feel that you don't know anything? So why did you say it before? There is no
option left in Hong Kong except for Revolution, and therefore you want
to go to study overseas? You sound bold and forthright to abandon the
mess that you leave behind?

Which of you scolded Raymond Wong
for picking on Edward Leung? All of you should commit
seppuku and die.

Is Hong Kong going to rely on your
people to bring in the Generational Revolution?

- Chun Man's Facebook

For most of the year before the
elections, I held great hopes for the generation that is younger than
I am, because I saw that they were willing to fight for the future of
Hong Kong unlike my generation.
Most of my generation say not to cause trouble, having food and
lodging is enough, and politics is none of their business.

During and after the elections, I
saw every single one of them saying that they are willing to sacrifice
for Hong Kong.
After the election, all I saw were traitors, or those who vanished
from view, or those who make fun of the election losers.
But when they got into trouble themselves, they refuse to acknowledge
their own mistakes.

I have no more hope for the new
generation. Perhaps only a small number of Hongkongers are left with
no slavish DNA. At this time in Hong Kong, the Legislative Council is
useless.

Since I have no ability, I can
only take care of my own self. When I have time, I will play some
computer games. It is useless to feel bad. I have lived half of my
life already. I don't have any children. The next generation of
Hongkongers can go on supporting those people who stand around and
chant slogans without doing anything else. I am better off watching
from the sideline.

Top row: Edward Leung after and
before selling out
Bottom row: Chinese student leader Wu'er Kaixi before and after going
into exile

- Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion)Two years ago, I was arrested during the clearance of Argyle Street
(Mong Kok). I got bailed out with an order not to go to Mong Kok. That
same night I went back to Mong Kok to continue the action. I also went
to Admiralty to lay siege to the Government Headquarters. On Christmas
Eve, I went down to Mong Kok to stir things up. I spend Christmas and
New Year's Day in the detention centre.

Thereafter, I continued to carry
bail. During the Restore Movement, I was arrested almost every time.
But I continued to come back out and fight.

Occupy, Resistance, Election. Each
one is a fight to the death with losses. My psychological state is a
mess as I am burned out.

I want to leave, but I am still
here.

Fuck your mother, full steam
ahead!

- Andy Kwong's Facebook

On one hand, Cheng Kam-mun gave up
his overseas studies in order to join the resistance in Hong Kong.
On the other hand, Edward went away to study in Canada after speaking
about Generational Revolutionary.
And then the people of Hong Kong feel that Edward Leung is a heroic
leader
whereas Cheng Kam-mun is a lousy bastard.

- Keyvin Wong's Facebook

Under a tyranny, all resisters are
in danger. If anyone should be persecuted to any degree, all others
should mourn. But some people like to boast about their own own
charges in order to raise themselves above others for the sake of
political capital.

Edward Leung's riot case will be
tried in January 2018. If he should be sent back into the detention
centre, he will have to serve more than a year of imprisonment. His
potential jail term is far more than the usual illegal assembly
charge. Although there are plenty of big talkers, very few of them are
facing problems of the same magnitude. This is simple to understand,
but certain shameless people are covering it up.

- Keyvin Wong has totally missed
the point. We are not comparing the relative severity of Edward
Leung's rioting charge against Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion)'s 59
counts of illegal assembly. A charge is not a medal. So what if your
potential sentence is heavier or lighter?

The point of emphasis is that
Edward Leung previously talked about being ready to give his life up
and thus got all the glory (and votes). But when he actually has to
go into the battlefield on behalf of Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching,
he says: "I am afraid of going to prison, I am cowardly" and then he
scoots off to study oversea! If he is so gutless, he should have
told us so before. Why did he steal our support by pretending to be
a revolutionary? Edward Leung brought us Leung Chung-hang/Yau
Wai-ching. Therefore nobody else is more responsible for what those
two did than Edward Leung. Cowardice is no excuse!

- Chris Wat Wing-yin's column

Seeing how Leung Chung-hang and
Yau Wai-ching went from the acme of glory deep into the abyss of
ignominy, Edward Leung stayed low until the past couple of days.
Edward Leung was interviewed by NOW TV. He apologized to his
supporters, admitted that he is useless and afraid of going to prison,
and he will be studying for a masters degree at Harvard University
next year.

Mong Kok riot co-leader Ray Wong
announced earlier that he has been accepted by Oxford University for a
two-year diploma course in philosophy. This is not a degree program,
but it is inspiring to see a secondary school graduate who could not
even qualify for university can attend Oxford right after throwing
bricks in a riot. Meanwhile Occupy Central leader and former Hong Kong
Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow is also studying
for a masters degree at the London School of Economics. Among the
trouble-makers, only Joshua Wong couldn't get into any famous
university. Nevertheless Wong has been traveling around Europe and
America, giving interviews and garnering fame.

When the leaders are fleeing, will
the Valiant Ones finally wake up? Let me tell you some old history
lessons ...

You like to talk about June 4th.
Every year you go down to Victoria Park to light candles. But did Lee
Cheuk-yan tell you what happened to the student leaders of that era?
What happened to them afterwards? After Wang Dan and Wu'er Kai-xi left
China, they went to study at Harvard. Wang Dan even got a doctorate
degree. Chai Ling escaped to France and even studied for a masters at
Princeton University and Harvard University. She married a foreigner
and became a company president. Everything that happened after leaving
China had nothing to do with the Chinese democracy movement.

The Victoria Park candlelight
vigil will not be showing the American documentary <Tiananmen Square>,
because Chai Ling told the truth: "We were hoping for bloodshed ...
when blood flows like a river on Tiananmen Square, the people of China
will truly open their eyes." As you have said before: you can never
wake someone up if they are pretending to be asleep. But the reality
is now in front of your eyes: Edward Leung is going to study at
Harvard. What about you? You may still be out on bail, but a cell has
been reserved for you at Stanley Prison. Did Harvard give you an
offer? Wake up! If you continue to sacrifice and act silly, you will
only make for someone else's perfect story.

Edward Leung said: "The Mong Kok
clash on Lunar New Year's Day caused Localists to become famous. The
blood had not been shed in vain."

Is he still as "valiant" as before?
He said: "I don't know. Hard to say." He said: "I should not be
afraid of being sent back to the detention centre. I should have
charged ahead. But if I was really that valiant, is that kind of
valor ill-considered? Is it stupid? Isn't the more urgent thing to
move more hearts and minds to gain more support for our side? If I
charge gloriously ahead and get detained until the Mong Kok riot
trial is held in January 2018, will that enable us to win over the
majority of the population? I don't think so, and I don't think that
this can achieve something such as overturning Basic Law
interpretation such as the August 31st resolution."

- Edward Leung's skin is thicker
than that of a dinosaur! In February, he sid that "resistance has
no bottom line." Today he says that he is a coward whose bottom
line is: "Do not be remanded into custody!" In other words, he
will only look after his own hide.

Fuck you! Do you think that
revolutionaries bask in the glory without ever having to pay a
price? As the father of the Generational Revolution, you find it
convenient to go into hiding when everybody expects you to lead
the troops. Chan Pak-yeung (Civic Passion) is in custody pending
appeal of a 9-month jail sentence for his part in the Mong Kok
riot. If you are so scared, then why did you talk about not caring
about matters of life/death.

The worst part is when Edward
Leung tells us that the blood was not shed in vain in Mong Kok,
because the Localists became famous. Hey, how dare you say that?
On February 8, you became the Father of the Generational
Revolution. But you did not put the rising fame of the Localists
to good use. Instead, you endorsed the two pieces of garbage known
as Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching and you derailed the Civic
Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order
de facto referendum plan. After Leung/Yau got into trouble,
you remained in hiding. Today, the cause of Localists is almost
completely ruined. And you dare to tell me that the blood was not
shed in vain?

On the latest episode of the
Channel-I program of Hong Kong Indigenous, Edward Leung said: "Two
years ago, many of us came out to 'Occupy'. How long did we 'Occupy'?
79 days! We were unable to shake the August 31st resolution of the
National People's Congress Standing Committee by even a fraction of an
inch. Today, the NPCSC has issued another executive order (in the form
of the Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104) with the full support
of the state apparatus ... so we must have an even larger mobilization
than last time in order to shake this Interpretatoin."

Leung said that he stayed away
because he deemed that it would be impossible to mobilize like "Occupy
Central" two years ago, much less something bigger. Therefore he chose
to stay quiet and did not come back to lead an 'insurrection.' "I
could have recorded some videos between my studies to call on people
to resist, to tell them that they should not blame the victims, to
unite and fight the Interpretation. But I am on bail with three
charges against me. When I cannot stand at the very front, I don't
want to do it."

Leung said: "If someone carrying bail
on multiple charges is willing to charge in the very front, I respect
him. But the darker side of my inner self is my cowardice. I don't
mind telling you, because I am not Superman."

Leung told people not to give up. He
said that the history of Taiwan provides a good example for Hong Kong.
"After the
Formosa incident, Taiwan went through seven years of silence
under oppression before the democracy/independence movement continued.
We must spread the idea of independence into various sectors of
society, so that it becomes the chemical agent for many more
possibilities."

Therefore it is premature to declare
Hong Kong independence as a failure just because of a temporary
setback. "The Mong Kok riot occurred less than a year ago. We cannot
say that it was a failure eight or nine months later. If so, we would
have declared the
Zhongli incident a failure too, because no large-scale
demonstration took place within the next eight or nine months. Hong
Kong is the same. It would be naive that the Chinese Communists would
collapse in one swoop with a single demonstration or a single clash."

The two
pro-independence lawmakers who were kicked out of Hong Kongs
legislature for failing to take their oaths properly lost their appeal
against disqualification on Wednesday and appeared hesitant about
taking their case to the citys top court.

In quashing the appeal by Sixtus
Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, who swore allegiance to a
Hong Kong nation when taking their oaths last month, the three Court
of Appeal judges unanimously confirmed the applicability of Beijings
true and proper interpretation of the Basic Law.

[The Basic Law] must mean that
taking the oath is a prerequisite and precondition to the assumption
of office, the judgment read. All this is now put beyond doubt by
the interpretation.

The ruling is a political victory for
both the Hong Kong and Beijing governments, which have stepped up
their rhetoric against advocates of Hong Kongs independence from
China since the pair were elected in September.

The court also conceded it had no
jurisdiction over how broad Beijings say might be when interpreting
the citys mini-constitution. It also ordered the pair to pay the full
legal costs.

Speaking outside
court, Leung and Yau reframed their earlier vow to fight all the way
to the Court of Final Appeal. They said they were actively
considering their ultimate appeal and had already written to the
appellate court to inform the judges, who were originally expecting to
hear their case on Thursday, that they reserved the right to appeal
for now.

Leung said he
was worried their final appeal might touch upon legal arguments that
could prompt the judges to seek a further interpretation from Beijing.
He was also worried about having to foot a seven-digit security bill
for a final court challenge.

1. These appeals are from the judgment of
Au J dated 15 November 2016.

2. The controversy leading to these appeals
is so great and so widely reported that it is unnecessary, particularly in
view of the urgency of the matter, to give any detailed account of the
facts. Suffice it to say, Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (Leung) and Yau Wai Ching
(Yau) were elected in their respective geographical constituencies in the
general election for the Legislative Council (LegCo) held in September
this year. Their terms of office as members of the LegCo started on
1 October 2016.

3. As stipulated in section 19 of the Oaths
and Declarations Ordinance (Cap 11) (the Ordinance):

 A member of the Legislative Council
shall, as soon as possible after the commencement of his term of office,
take the Legislative Council Oath which 

if taken at the first sitting of the
session of the Legislative Council immediately after a general election of
all members of the Council and before the election of the President of the
Council, shall be administered by the Clerk to the Council;

if taken at any other sitting of the
Council, shall be administered by the President of the Council or any
member acting in his place.

4. Section 16(d) and Schedule 2, Part IV of
the Ordinance require the LegCo Oath to be in the following terms:

 I swear that, being a member of the
Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
Peoples Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, bear
allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples
Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and
with integrity.

5. The first meeting of the LegCo was held
on 12 October 2016. On that day, both Leung and Yau were duly requested to
take the LegCo Oath before the Clerk to the LegCo, as the election of the
President of the Council had yet to take place. Both Leung and Yau
purported to do so, but in ways and manners, detailed in paragraph 5 of the
judgment below, which departed substantially from the statutory contents of
the LegCo Oath, and evinced objectively an intention on their respective
parts not to be bound by it.

6. In particular, it is plain, as the
learned judge below analysed in paragraphs 45 and 46 of his judgment, that
neither Leung nor Yau intended to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, or bear
allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples
Republic of China. Both elements are mandatory parts of the LegCo Oath.
But not only that  they actually constitute the core substantive
requirement of article 104 of the Basic Law:

 When assuming office, the Chief
Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of
the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other
members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and
swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
People's Republic of China.

7. On 18 October 2016, the President of the
LegCo (elected to his office after the oath taking incident described above)
gave a written ruling, after obtaining senior counsels advice, that
[Leung and Yau] could not be serious about their oath and were unwilling to
be bound by it (paragraph 6), and their oaths were invalid.
Nonetheless, he said he was prepared to allow Mr LEUNG and Ms YAU to take
their oath afresh at a Council meeting if they put forward their requests in
writing (paragraph 7), which requests Leung and Yau immediately made on the
same day.

8. As is only too well-known, these events
triggered the urgent commencement by the Chief Executive and the Secretary
of Justice of two sets of proceedings below on 18 October 2016, which were
described in some detail in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment below, as
well as an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National Peoples
Congress (NPCSC), pursuant to article 67(4) of the Constitution of the
Peoples Republic of China and article 158(1) of the Basic Law, of the true
meaning of article 104 on 7 November 2016 (the Interpretation).

9. The judgment below

After an expedited hearing, the judge
concluded in his judgment that what Leung and Yau did amounted to their
respectively declining or wilfully omitting to take the LegCo Oath when
duly requested to do so. The consequence of what they did, the judge
decided, is governed by section 21 of the Ordinance:

 Any person who declines or neglects
to take an oath duly requested which he is required to take by this Part,
shall-

(a) if he has already entered on his
office, vacate it, and
(b) if he has not entered on his office, be disqualified from entering on
it.

10. Rejecting an argument to the contrary,
the judge decided that once a person declines or neglects to take the
relevant oath when duly requested to do so, he is automatically regarded as
having vacated his office in question under section 21. In other words,
what Leung and Yau did on 12 October 2016 led automatically, by operation of
law under section 21, to the vacation of their respective offices as
Legislative Councillor.

11. In those circumstances, the judge
agreed with the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice that contrary
to his ruling dated 18 October 2016, the President of the LegCo had no power
to give Leung and Yau a second chance to take the LegCo Oath again. The
judge rejected various arguments raised by Leung and Yau, including their
main argument based on the non-intervention principle, and decided the
proceedings in favour of the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice
by granting declaratory and other relief against the President, on the
basis that Mr Leung and Ms Yau have already vacated the office as a member
of the LegCo, and are not entitled to act as a member of the LegCo (paragraph
130(2)(a)). In other words, Leung and Yau have lost their seats in the
LegCo, their offices are vacant and there will be by-elections.

The arguments on appeal

12. Aggrieved by the judges decision,
Leung and Yau appealed. Mr Hectar Pun SC (Mr Anson YY Wong with him), for
Leung, essentially argued that the principle of non-intervention applied to
the present case so that the judge was wrong to interfere with the internal
workings or business of the LegCo, that is, the taking or the retaking of
the LegCo Oath by Leung. Mr Pun accepted that the principle of
nonintervention as applied in Hong Kong is subject to the constitutional
requirements of the [Basic Law] (paragraph 12(1) of his skeleton
arguments), but he emphasised that in the present case, the constitutional
requirement under article 104 of the Basic Law was simply not
engaged because the dispute here was not about whether his client had taken
the LegCo Oath  he had not. Rather, the issue was about the consequence of
his failure to do so, which turned on whether Leung had declined or
neglected to take the LegCo Oath  in which case section 21 of the Ordinance
would be triggered and his client would be obliged to vacate his seat. Mr
Pun submitted that section 21 does not form part of the constitutional
requirement under article 104. He argued that the present case was not
distinguishable from the English case of Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884)
12 QBD 271, where the English court refused to interfere with an oath taking
dispute between Parliament and one of its members.

13. Mr Pun further argued neither the Clerk
nor the President had determined that Leung had declined or neglected to
take the LegCo Oath on 12 October 2016, whereas Leung had indicated in
evidence that he had been ready, prepared and willing to take the Oath
afresh at the next meeting on 19 October 2016 and had not declined or
neglected to do so. Furthermore, the President had indicated in his
capacity as the oath administrator that he was prepared to allow Leung to
take the Oath afresh on 19 October 2016. All these matters were internal
business of the LegCo in which the courts cannot intervene.

14. Mr Pun took the further point, relying
on Makucha v Sydney Water Corporation [2013] NSWCA 177, that even
if a LegCo member had declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath, there
was to be no automatic vacation of office. Rather, section 21 merely
requires the member to vacate it. Mr Pun submitted that the member had to
resign or the President could make a declaration, pursuant to article 79(1)
of the Basic Law, that the member was no longer qualified for the
office as he or she had [lost] the ability to discharge his or her duties
as a result of [section 21].

15. Mr Pun also submitted that section 73
of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542), based on which one set of
proceedings below was commenced, does not confer any jurisdiction on the
court to determine matters such as whether a LegCo member has been
disqualified from being a member or has ceased to be one, and does not
therefore provide a bypass to the non-intervention principle. He argued
that as Leung had not been disqualified under section 21 of the Ordinance,
section 73(1) simply had no application. Section 73(1) is only applicable
after a declaration under article 79(1) of the Basic Law has been made by
the President as described above. In any event, section 73(1) does not give
the Chief Executive any locus to sue.

16. Mr Pun further argued that the judge
was wrong in usurping the fact-finding function of the President regarding
whether Leung had declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath.

17. Insofar as may be necessary but not
otherwise, Mr Pun relied on the Interpretation, particularly paragraph 2(3)
and (4) to say that whether an oath taker has fallen foul of section 21 by
declining to take the LegCo Oath is a matter for the Clerk or President, but
not the court to decide. However, insofar as the Chief Executive and the
Secretary for Justice sought to make a case against his appeals based on the
Interpretation, Mr Pun raised the issues of whether the Interpretation has
retrospective effect in the sense that it covers the present case now before
the court, and whether it is truly an interpretation falling within the
meaning of article 158 of the Basic Law (or merely an interpretation in name
but an amendment of the Basic Law in substance).

18. Finally, in written submissions, Mr Pun
also prayed in aid article 77 of the Basic Law regarding members of the
LegCos immunity from suit, and argued that the immunity covered the oath
taking event in the present case.

19. Mr Philip Dykes SC (Mr Jeffrey Tam with
him), for Yau, also relied on the principle of non-intervention.
Essentially, Mr Dykes submitted that oath taking is an internal business of
the LegCo. Primarily, it is for the Clerk or the President to determine
whether an oath has been validly taken, and in particular, whether the
member has declined or neglected to take the oath. Mr Dykes accepted that
once a decision has been made by the Clerk or the President, the court has
the jurisdiction to decide whether article 104 of the Basic Law has been
complied with. However, Mr Dykes submitted, neither the Clerk nor the
President has made any such decision. It is simply premature for the court
to intervene in the matter.

20. Likewise, counsel submitted, an
application made under section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance is,
except in the case of a members resignation, predicated on a declaration by
the President under article 79 of the Basic Law. In the present case, the
President has made no such declaration.

21. As Mr Benjamin Yu SC (Mr Johnny Mok SC,
Mr Jimmy Ma and Mr Jenkin Suen with him) for the Chief Executive and the
Secretary for Justice submitted, the applicants arguments essentially
raised several subject matters, that is, the non-intervention principle; the
role of the oath administrator; whether vacation of the office is automatic
under section 21 of the Ordinance; the scope of application of section 73 of
the Legislative Council Ordinance; and the immunity from suit under
article 77 of the Basic Law. Counsel submitted that the
appellants arguments were unsustainable.

The principle of non-intervention

22. The principle of nonintervention has
been dealt with by the courts in recent years: Leung Kwok Hung v
President of Legislative Council [2007] 1 HKLRD 387; Cheng Kar Shun v
Li Fung Ying [2011] 2 HKLRD 555; Leung Kwok Hung v President of the
Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
CACV 123/2012, 1 February 2013 (CA); affirmed on appeal: (2014) 17 HKCFAR 689
(CFA). It is an established principle of common law which is of seminal
importance and high constitutional significance. Historically, it was
derived from or justified by historical development, functional necessity,
the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and (in the United
Kingdom) the sovereignty of Parliament. The preferred view in a
jurisdiction like Hong Kong now is to justify it on the common law principle
of separation of powers. The principle makes good constitutional as well as
practical sense. Under it, the court respects and recognises the exclusive
authority of the legislature in managing its own internal processes in the
conduct of its business. The court will not intervene to rule on the
regularity or irregularity of the internal processes of the legislature but
will leave it to determine exclusively for itself matters of this kind. On
a practical level, this principle allows the legislature to be left freely
to manage and to resolve its internal affairs, free from intervention by the
courts and from the possible disruption, delays and uncertainties which
could result from such intervention. Freedom from these problems is both
desirable and necessary in the interest of the orderly, efficient and fair
disposition of the legislatures business. Leung Kwok Hung (CFA),
paragraphs 27 to 30.

23. In the United Kingdom where Parliament
(or more precisely, the Queen in Parliament), replacing the absolute
monarchy in old times, is supreme and sovereign, a further explanation for
this principle of non-intervention is that it gives effect to Parliaments
supremacy and sovereignty. In the context of Parliaments law making
function, the courts role there is confined to interpreting and applying
what Parliament has enacted. When an enactment is passed there is finality
unless and until it is amended or repealed by Parliament: The Bahamas
District of the Methodist Church v Symonette [2000] 5 LRC 196,
207h208a.

24. However, in a jurisdiction like Hong
Kong where a written constitution (that is, the Basic Law), rather than the
legislature, is supreme, where the rule of law reigns and where the courts
are given under the constitution the independent power of adjudication, this
principle of non-intervention has its own inherent limit.

25. First and foremost, the supremacy of
the Basic Law means that no one  the legislature included  is above the
Basic Law. In other words, where a constitutional requirement under the
Basic Law is in issue, even the legislature cannot act contrary to that
requirement under the Basic Law. Secondly, given that the courts are given
under the constitution the independent power of adjudication of the Special
Administrative Region, the question of whether that constitutional
requirement has been complied with or breached is a matter which it is both
the power and responsibility of the courts to decide. As the Court of Final
Appeal importantly pointed out in Leung Kwok Hung, paragraph 32:

Article 104 is a constitutional
requirement

26. In the present case, there cannot be
any doubt that article 104 of the Basic Law lays down a constitutional
requirement. Article 104 is found in Chapter IV of the Basic Law setting
out the political structure of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
It contains six sections, dealing respectively with the Chief Executive,
the Executive Authorities, the Legislature, the Judiciary, District
Organizations and lastly, Public Servants. In essence, it covers everyone
who is empowered to and charged with the responsibility for running the
Special Administrative Region. At the very end of this long chapter, one
finds article 104, which expressly requires that when assuming office, the
Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and
of the LegCo, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the
judiciary to, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law and
swear allegiance to the Special Administrative Region.

27. As the judge correctly explained
(paragraphs 31 to 33), the taking of an oath and pledging of allegiance are
serious matters. When taking an oath, no less a promissory oath such as the
LegCo Oath, both the form and the substance matter greatly. The requirement
under article 104 is plainly designed to secure the genuine,
solemn and sincere declaration and pledge by the holders of the important
offices mentioned in that article to do their utmost, in accordance with the
Basic Law, to discharge the high responsibilities entrusted to them in
running the Special Administrative Region in their respective roles assigned
under the Basic Law. Article 104 clearly lays down a constitutional
requirement that an oath must be taken in accordance with what is required
under that article. Moreover, it says when assuming office, the oath must
be taken. It must mean that taking the oath is a prerequisite and
precondition to the assumption of office.

28. All this is now put beyond doubt by the
Interpretation.

Consequence of noncompliance is part
of the constitutional requirement

29. The Interpretation gives the true
meaning of article 104. Paragraph 2(3) of the Interpretation specifically
sets out the consequence of an oath takers declining to take the relevant
oath  automatic disqualification, as part of the true meaning of
article 104. It conclusively defeats Mr Puns argument that the consequence
of a failure to take the relevant oath as required by article 104 does not
form part of the constitutional requirement, so that the principle of
nonintervention applies.

30. Furthermore, article 104 says the oath
must be taken in accordance with law. The relevant provisions in the
Ordinance actually predated the drafting of the Basic Law. When article 104
refers to law, the drafters must have in mind the provisions in the
Ordinance. Section 21(a) of the Ordinance says that if an office holder
declines or neglects to take the relevant oath, he shall vacate his office.
That is perfectly consistent with article 104. Since article 104
specifically refers to the implementing law, it provides another reason for
rejecting Mr Puns argument that article 104 is not engaged but only
section 21(a) of the Ordinance is  and therefore the principle of
nonintervention still applies. It is neither right nor realistic to look
at article 104 without looking at its implementing law (in the present case,
the relevant provisions in the Ordinance) together, or to look at the
statutory provisions without looking at article 104 at the same time, in
deciding whether the constitutional requirement under article 104 has been
satisfied.

31. Mr Pun argued that law in the phrase
in accordance with law only includes sections 16 and 19 of the Ordinance,
but not section 21. With respect, this is taking far too narrow a reading
of article 104. Law in article 104 must be a reference to the whole of
the implementing law, including in particular that part of the law which
prescribes the consequence of a failure to take the oath in question (that
is, section 21). As Mr Yu submitted, when article 104 lays down a
requirement, the consequence of failing to meet that requirement is
necessarily part and parcel of the requirement itself. The principle of
nonintervention cannot prevent the court from adjudicating on the
consequence of a failure to meet the constitutional requirement.

A matter for the court to decide

32. Since articles 19(1) and (2) and 80 of
the Basic Law vest the independent judicial power of the Special
Administrative Region in the courts, giving the courts jurisdiction over
all cases in the Region, and establishing them as the judiciary of the
Region, exercising the judicial power of the Region, it is for the courts,
not anyone else, to determine whether the constitutional requirement
described above has been satisfied.

33. This disposes of three arguments
mounted on behalf of Leung and Yau. First, as mentioned, the courts cannot
shrink from their constitutional duty to adjudicate on the question of
whether the constitutional requirement under article 104 has been satisfied
by not intervening in the present dispute in the name of the principle of
non-intervention or separation of powers. The Basic Law, not the
legislature, is supreme. Secondly, it also disposes of the further argument
that it is for the oath administrator (that is, the Clerk or the President)
to determine whether Leung and Yau have respectively taken a valid oath, and
if not, whether they have respectively declined or neglected to take the
oath. Thirdly, it also disposes of the more limited argument raised by Mr Dykes
that before the oath administrator makes a decision on the issues just
described, it is premature to invite the court to intervene. Plainly,
section 21 says none of these. Nor does the principle of nonintervention
require any such interpretation be put on section 21, as the principle
simply has no application given that a constitutional requirement is
involved.

34. All these arguments must be rejected.

Paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation

35. Mr Pun relied on paragraph 2(4) of the
Interpretation to back his argument that it is for the oath administrator,
rather than the court, to decide whether the LegCo Oath has been validly
taken, or whether the (purported) oath taker has declined or neglected to
take the oath. I reject the argument. Paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation
reads in Chinese:

36. It is clear from the Chinese version,
particularly the use of the words 應確定 (which is better rendered as should
confirm/affirm), that paragraph 2(4) seeks to emphasise the important
administrative duty of the oath administrator to ensure that the oath taker
has taken the relevant oath properly and validly in full accordance with the
Interpretation and the law, and that when the office holder declines to take
the oath (paragraph 2(3)), the oath administrator must resolutely say so and
refuse to make any administrative arrangement for the retaking of the oath.
What it plainly does not say is it gives the oath administrator any
judicial power of the Special Administrative Region to determine whether the
oath taken is in accordance with the requirements of the Basic Law and the
Ordinance. Still less does it take away the courts judicial power of the
Special Administrative Region, granted under the Basic Law, to adjudicate on
a dispute.

37. Neither does the Interpretation give
the oath administrator any fact-finding role in any judicial sense. In
other words, it does not give the oath administrator a judicial power of the
Special Administrative Region to make any finding of fact. Nor does it
constitute the oath administrator as a sort of administrative tribunal of
fact (subjecting him thereby to all that standard administrative law
requires of such a tribunal of fact to observe by way of procedural fairness
etc). Still less does it exclude the courts judicial power, conferred
under the Basic Law, to make the relevant findings of fact.

38. If anything, paragraph 4 highlights the
absolute importance of full compliance with the oath taking requirements
under article 104 and the implementing law. Indeed, one may ask
rhetorically: if the oath administrator is required, as indeed he is under
paragraph 2(4), to use his utmost to ensure compliance, how much more are
the courts of the Special Administrative Region expected and required to do
so?

39. In the final analysis, what is at stake
is the compliance of a constitutional requirement of great significance. In
any given set of facts, this can admit of one correct answer only. There is
no room for a court to simply sit back without correcting an answer given by
the oath administrator which the court considers to be wrong, at the expense
of the constitutional requirement. What is in issue is squarely a judicial
matter which the courts alone are given the judicial power of the Special
Administrative Region under the Basic Law to determine. What is involved is
not an ordinary judicial review type of situation where the court only
conducts a Wednesbury unreasonableness review. Rather, there can be only
one right answer when the issue of compliance with the constitutional
requirement is raised and nothing short of a full merit review will suffice.
The court, according to the Basic Law, is the ordained organ to determine
the question.

40. Of course, what I have said above does
not prevent at all a court from, when hearing a dispute on the validity of
an oath taken or one regarding whether the oath taker has declined or
refused to take the oath when duly requested to do so, receiving evidence
from the oath administrator on what his views are and the reasons for those
views, insofar as they are relevant and admissible, and according them
weight accordingly.

Both Leung and Yau have declined to
take the Oath

41. On the facts, there can be no dispute
that both Leung and Yau have declined respectively to take the LegCo Oath.
They have put forward no argument to dispute this. Nor can they. There
can be no innocent explanation for what they uttered and did on
12 October 2016. What has been done was done deliberately and
intentionally. This conclusion, reached by the judge after careful
consideration, is unassailable.

Disqualification forthwith and
automatic vacation of office

42. As a matter of law and fact, Leung and
Yau have failed the constitutional requirement. They are caught by
paragraph 2(3) of the Interpretation as well as section 21 of the Ordinance
which gives effect to the constitutional requirement. Under the former,
they were automatically disqualified forthwith from assuming their offices.
Under the latter, they shall vacate [their respective offices]. There
is therefore no question of allowing them to retake the LegCo Oath.

43. That leaves only the question
of whether vacation of office under section 21 is automatic. This is a
necessary plank to Mr Puns and Mr Dykes procedural argument, based on
section 15(1)(e) of the Legislative Council Ordinance, that a declaration by
the President under article 79(1) of the Basic Law is a prerequisite to any
proceedings under section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance.

44. I agree with the judge that vacation of
office is automatic. It simply serves no useful purpose to require a
further step to be taken by the person in question to vacate his office. By
definition, this is someone who has declined or wilfully neglected to do the
very first and basic thing required of him or her when assuming office, that
is, to take the oath when duly requested to do so. There is simply no point
in requiring him or her to take the further step of vacating the office. To
do so would simply invite further dispute as well as create confusion and
uncertainties. The Australian case of Makucha is not binding on this court.
It was dealing with a totally different situation, and the court there was
simply expressing an obiter view without any reasoning (paragraph 18). It
is fair to say that the court there was mainly concerned with upholding the
judicial acts done by the judge below the validity of whose judicial oath
was called into question.

Article 79(1) of the Basic Law

45. I reject the further argument based on
article 79(1) of the Basic Law. With respect, one only needs to read the
Chinese text of article 79(1) to see that it plainly does not apply to the
present type of situation. Disqualification under section 21 is miles away
from 無力履行職務 (loses the ability to discharge his or her duties) in
article 79(1).

Section 73 of the Legislative Council
Ordinance

46. In any event, I reject the argument
that the scope of application of section 73(1) is limited to those
situations set out in section 15 of the Legislative Council Ordinance. It
does not say so. The fallacy of the argument is to treat section 15 as
being exhaustive. It is not.

47. Given my views above, the arguments
over the scope of application of section 73 of the Legislative Council
Ordinance are of little significance so far as the principle of
non-intervention is concerned. It is unnecessary to resort to section 73 to
get round, as it were, the principle of nonintervention. When a
constitutional requirement is at stake, this courts jurisdiction is not
founded on the legislatures voluntary concession of jurisdiction. This
courts jurisdiction is conferred by the Basic Law, the exercise of which is
a matter of constitutional duty, which is not restrained by the common law
principle of nonintervention.

48. Section 73 is of significance in the
arguments raised in these appeals also for a procedural reason. It is said
that section 73 only gives the Secretary for Justice, but not the Chief
Executive, the locus to sue. Further, it is said that section 73(7)
excludes all other forms of proceedings.

49. All I wish to say is this. I accept
that proceedings under section 73 may only be brought by the Secretary for
Justice or an elector, but not the Chief Executive in his official capacity
as such. However, I do not agree that apart from section 73, no proceedings
can be brought by the Chief Executive. Given the Chief Executives
constitutional role under article 48(2) of the Basic Law (to be responsible
for the implementation of the Basic Law and other laws), any attempted
restriction on the Chief Executives right to take steps, including the
commencement of court proceedings, to implement the Basic Law must be
incompatible with article 48(2) and therefore invalid. Plainly, section 21J
of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) entitles the Chief Executive to sue. On
its proper construction, section 73(7) does not prevent the Chief Executive
from doing so.

50. In any dispute, one must look at the
facts concerned and the relief one seeks to determine whether proceedings
should be commenced under section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance,
or under section 21J of the High Court Ordinance by means of an application
for judicial review (section 21K(1)(b) of the High Court Ordinance), or
both.

Immunity from suit under article 77

51. Immunity from suit enjoyed by
legislators under article 77 of the Basic Law has no relevance in the
present dispute. The article gives members of the LegCo immunity from legal
action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council. It is
neither necessary nor desirable to define the scope of immunity conferred by
that article in these appeals. One thing is clear. The Basic Law must be
read as a whole. Article 77 must be read together with article 104. Given
the importance of article 104 as explained above, it is simply unarguable
that the drafters of the Basic Law intended to permit members of the LegCo
 yet not anyone else as article 77 only applies to them  to get round the
constitutional requirement on oath taking laid down in article 104 via the
backdoor of article 77. It would make a mockery of article 104 and serve no
discernable, meaningful purpose. Thus analysed, the old English case of
Bradlaugh v Gossett, a case heavily relied on by Mr Pun and Mr Dykes, loses
much if not all of its relevance in the present debate. First, the English
court there was not faced with a constitutional requirement. Secondly,
Parliament is supreme and sovereign in the United Kingdom. The English
court was simply not in a position to adjudicate on the dispute between
Parliament and its member in question. In any event, the English case is
not binding on this court, and insofar as may be necessary, I would, with
respect, decline to follow it.

The Interpretation

52. Finally, I turn to Mr Puns arguments
on the Interpretation.

53. First, the Interpretation, by
definition, sets out the true and proper meaning of article 104 from day
one. The question of whether it applies retrospectively to any given set
of facts whether pending before the court or not therefore cannot and does
not arise, save for the situation specifically provided in article 158(3) of
the Basic Law, which is not the case here. As the Court of Final Appeal
explained in Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration (1999) 2
HKCFAR 300, 326D:

The Interpretation, being an
interpretation of the relevant provisions, dates from 1 July 1997 when the
Basic Law came into effect. It declared what the law has always been.

54. Secondly, regarding Mr Puns argument
that an interpretation only applies retrospectively if it merely clarifies
the law in question but not when it supplements it, this submission has no
support from the authorities. The Court of Final Appeal said in Director of
Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211, 222J223C:

 The Standing Committees power to
interpret the Basic Law is derived from the Chinese Constitution and the
Basic Law. In interpreting the Basic Law, the Standing Committee
functions under a system which is different from the system in Hong Kong.
As has been pointed out, under the Mainland system, legislative
interpretation by the Standing Committee can clarify or supplement laws.
Where the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of a provision of
the Basic Law, whether under art. 158(1) which relates to any provision,
or under art. 158(3) which relates to the excluded provisions, the courts
in Hong Kong are bound to follow it. Thus, the authority of the Standing
Committee to interpret the Basic Law is fully acknowledged and respected
in the Region. This is the effect of the Basic Law implementing the one
country, two systems principle as was held by the Court in Lau
Kong Yung. Both systems being within one country, the Standing
Committees interpretation made in conformity with art. 158 under a
different system is binding in and part of the system in the Region.

55. No distinction is drawn between the two
types of situations under discussion. The suggested distinction by Mr Pun
must be rejected.

56. Thirdly, as to the submission that the
Interpretation is only an interpretation in name but an amendment of the
Basic Law in substance which can only be done by the National Peoples
Congress in accordance with article 159 of the Basic Law, this argument does
not even get off the evidential ground and must be rejected. Here, as
explained in Chong Fung Yuen in the passage cited above, one is in the
interface of one country two systems, and, in particular, one is concerned
with the other system  that is, the civil law system practised on the
Mainland, when it comes to an interpretation by the NPCSC. When the NPCSC
interprets the Basic Law, it is operating under the Mainlands civil law
system.

57. In the absence of any evidence to show
what, under a civil law system, particularly the civil law system practised
on the Mainland, is regarded as the proper scope of an interpretation of the
present type, one simply has no material to argue, let alone to conclude,
that what has been done has gone outside the permissible scope of an
interpretation. The view of a common law lawyer, untrained in the civil law
system, particularly the civil law system practised on the Mainland, is,
with respect, simply quite irrelevant.

58. But more importantly, this present
argument raises an a priori question of whether under the Basic Law, the
courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have ever been vested
with the jurisdiction to determine whether an interpretation
officially promulgated as such by the NPCSC in accordance with article 67(4)
of the Constitution and article 158 of the Basic Law and the procedure
therein is invalid on the ground under discussion. Apart from citing to the
court a passage in Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2
HKCFAR 4, 26A-B which must be read together with Ng Ka Ling (No 2)
(1999) 2 HKCFAR 141, where the Court of Final Appeal clarified in no
uncertain terms that the courts in Hong Kong cannot question the authority
of the National Peoples Congress or the Standing Committee to do any act
which is in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and the
procedure therein (p 142E), Mr Pun has simply made no submission on this
fundamental question of jurisdiction.

59. In my view, the court has no
jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised.

Disposal

60. For all these reasons, I would dismiss
these appeals with costs.

Hon Lam VP:

61. I respectfully agree with the judgment
of the Chief Judge and for the reasons he gave the appeals must be
dismissed. In view of the constitutional importance of these appeals and the
apparent misapprehension on the scope of the principle of non-intervention,
I would add some observations of my own.

62. As accepted by Mr Dykes (but disputed
by Mr Pun), in Hong Kong the principle of non-intervention is only a
self-restraint imposed by the courts in the exercise of jurisdiction rather
than a matter that goes to jurisdiction.

63. The Basic Law is the foundation of all
executive, legislative and judicial authorities in Hong Kong. As my Lord
the Chief Judge pointed out, the judicial power of the courts in Hong Kong
and the correspondent adjudicative authority are derived from article 80 of
the Basic Law. Further, under article 85, the courts shall exercise judicial
power independently and free from any interference. In the exercise of
judicial power, judges must adjudicate issues strictly in accordance with
laws, and nothing else. The laws, as set out in article 8 are, subject to a
very important rider, the common law and statutes. The rider is that these
laws must not contravene the Basic Law.

64. Thus, as explained by the Chief Judge,
the LegCo, whilst designated as the legislative authority under the Basic
Law, must also be subject to the Basic Law. In this respect, our LegCo is
different from Parliament of the United Kingdom.

65. The Basic Law does not confer any
judicial authority on the LegCo. Hence, in respect of issues arising from
disputes concerning compliance with the Basic Law, the LegCo does not have
any judicial authority. Whilst article 79 of the Basic Law does confer
authority on the President of the LegCo to declare a member no longer
qualified for office in certain specified circumstances, it is not the same
as saying that the President has judicial authority to determine all
questions relating to membership of the LegCo. A clear example where
membership of LegCo is to be determined by courts through a judicial process
is election petition concerning LegCo elections.

66. Since the source of the
courts judicial power is derived from the Basic Law, a judge has a
constitutional duty to consider the constitutionality of legislation passed
by the LegCo if it is an issue arising from the facts of a case before
him. Likewise, where there is a complaint as to the non-compliance with a
constitutional prerequisite before assumption of office, our courts are
duty-bound to examine the same according to law. As explained by the Chief
Judge, article 104 is an important constitutional requirement and the courts
have a constitutional duty to uphold the same.

67. The exercise of such judicial power
should not be perceived as the courts being embroiled in political disputes.
In the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Powell v Mc Cormack (1969) 395
US 486 cited by Mr Dykes, Warren CJ held at pp.548-9 that the determination
of a Congressmans right to sit required no more than an interpretation of
the Constitution which fell within the traditional role accorded to courts
to interpret the law. Even if the exercise of such power conflicted with
the resolution of the Congress, Warren CJ said these:

The alleged conflict that such an
adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts avoiding their
constitutional responsibility . For, as we noted in Baker v Carr it is
the responsibility of this Court to act as the ultimate interpreter of the
Constitution.

68. As I have said, in adjudicating on
these issues the courts only concern themselves with legal questions, and
the issues before us in these appeals are whether the requirement in article
104 has been complied with and if not, what are the consequences. In our
deliberations, we address legal arguments advanced before us and apply the
law (including the Interpretation, which upon its pronouncement becomes part
of our laws) strictly as we find them. It is for this very reason that the
Chief Judge had to stop Mr Yu when counsel at one stage unwittingly treaded
beyond the proper scope of legal arguments by quoting from Socrates on abuse
of democracy. It is important that we keep politics out of the judicial
process.

69. Nor should the exercise of judicial
power in these instances be regarded as the courts intervention into the
internal affairs of the LegCo. The principle of non-intervention is a
principle governing the exercise of the courts jurisdiction, placing
importance on the integrity and efficiency of the legislative process.
Thus, in cases where the intervention of the court would disrupt the
legislative process as in Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying [2011] 1
HKLRD 555 and Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council (2014)
17 HKCFAR 689, the court would refrain from intervention. But the court
would not shy away from examining the products of such process as in cases
where the courts examined the constitutionality of a piece of legislation.
In Leung Kwok Hung, the Court of Final Appeal highlighted at [39] to [43]
that in cases where the legislative authority is subject to a written
constitution (as in the case of our LegCo), the judicial authority will
determine whether the legislature has a particular power, privilege or
immunity though it would not exercise jurisdiction to determine the occasion
or the manner of the exercise of the same.

70. The Court of Final Appeal expressed the
principle of non-intervention in these terms at [28] by reference to the
relationship between the legislature and the courts:

 .This relationship includes the principle
that the courts will recognise the exclusive authority of the legislature in
managing its own internal processes in the conduct of its business The
corollary is the proposition that the courts will not intervene to rule on
the regularity or irregularity of the internal processes of the legislature
but will leave it to determine exclusively for itself matters of this kind 

71. The Court of Final Appeal also stressed
that the principle of non-intervention is necessarily subject to
constitutional requirements, see [32]. This has been consistently regarded
by our courts as the limits of that principle, see the decision at first
instance in Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council [2012]
3 HKLRD 483, at [36]; at the Court of Appeal, in CACV 123 of 2012,
1 Feb 2013, at [24]; Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying, supra at [220].

72. For the reasons given by the Chief
Judge, the non-compliance with the oath-taking prerequisite in article 104
and its consequence are matters of constitutional requirement which the
courts have a constitutional duty to examine when it is an issue in a case
coming before us. Compliance with such constitutional requirement is not
merely a matter of internal process of the LegCo. Oath taking is not
simply a requirement of LegCos internal rules. Though it took place within
the walls of the LegCo Building, it is a matter of immense importance to the
whole Hong Kong Special Administrative Region including the Government as
well as its general public because the requirement underpins the allegiance
owed to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic
of China and the sincerity and integrity of the oath taker in upholding the
Basic Law. Without the oath properly taken, the member concerned could not
assume office and no authority is conferred upon him or her to act as our
lawmaker.

73. As illustrated by election petition
cases, membership of LegCo is not an internal matter for the LegCo. The
courts must intervene when non-compliance with article 104 is brought to our
attention.

74. The soundness of this analysis is
easily borne out by examining a hypothetical case where a member is wrongly
ruled by the Clerk or President to have failed to comply with article 104
and disqualified under Section 21 accordingly. It is hard to see why in such
circumstances such a member cannot come to court to seek relief
notwithstanding that the oath taking took place within the walls of the
LegCo Building. Mr Dykes and Mr Pun readily agreed that the court must
intervene in such circumstances.

75. In the converse situation, where a
member should have been disqualified but was not so disqualified, electors
in the electoral constituency of that member should, as a matter of law, be
entitled to have a by-election for the seat and other candidates should also
be entitled to run for the same. Hence, it is impossible to characterise
the oath taking as a mere internal affair or a matter in the internal
process of the LegCo. There is no reason why the courts should refrain from
intervening in such circumstances.

76. Properly understood, Bradlaugh v
Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271 on which Mr Pun placed great reliance cannot stand
in the way of the above analysis. What was in issue in that case was the
resolution of the House of Commons excluding a member from the House until
he shall engage not to attempt to take the oath in disregard of the
resolution of the House then in force. What happened was that Mr Bradlaugh
was prohibited from taking the oath because he did not believe in the
existence of a Supreme Being, see AG v Bradlaugh (1885) 14 QBD 667, also the
judgment of Stephen J in Bradlaugh v Gossett, supra at p.279. In that case,
Mr Bradlaugh sued the Serjeant-at-Arms who excluded him from the House
pursuant to the resolution of the House. It was in such context that Lord
Coleridge CJ said at p.275:

What is said or done within the walls of
Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law The jurisdiction of
the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within
their walls, is absolute and exclusive.

Coleridge CJ obviously regarded it as a
matter of internal discipline as he said at pp.276-277:

Consistently with all the statements in
the claim, it may be that the plaintiff insisted on taking the oath in a
manner and under circumstances which the House had a clear right to object
to or prevent.

At p.277 he also agreed with Stephen Js
broader analysis as to why the court should not examine the basis on which
the House passed the resolution. Stephen J proceeded on the assumption that
there was inconsistency between the resolution and the Parliamentary Oaths
Act and he ruled that the court should not intervene because

(a)The court could not do justice without
infringing the dignity and independence of the House as it would necessitate
the examination of the reasons for the Houses resolution, see pp.280-281;

(b)In respect of matters of parliamentary
privilege in respect of affairs within the House of Commons, even if the
House decided the same not in accordance with law, it would be akin to an
error by a judge whose decision was not subject to any appeal, see
p.284-286.

77. It should be noted that the courts did
not hold that they had no jurisdiction to examine if the affirmation adopted
by a member of the House was valid. In earlier proceedings in Clarke v
Bradlaugh (1881) 7 QBD 38, the court held that the affirmation by Mr Bradlaugh
purportedly under section 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1870 was invalid
as he was not a person falling within the scope of that section. Though the
actual result was overturned on appeal in the House of Lords reported in
(1883) 8 App Cas 354 as the court held that the person who brought the
proceedings had no locus to do so, the finding on the invalidity of the
affirmation was not disturbed. Stephen J accepted that the courts had the
power to make such decision in Bradlaugh v Gossett, supra, at pp.281 to 282.
Subsequently in AG v Bradlaugh (1885) 14 QBD 667, in proceedings brought by
the Attorney General penalty was imposed by the Divisional Court on account
of Mr Bradlaughs sitting and voting in the parliament despite his invalid
affirmation and it was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal. Thus, the
reference to the courts inability to investigate into what happened within
the walls of the Parliament should not be taken too literally.

78. Whatever the position may be in respect
of the relationship between the courts and the House of Commons in
19th century England, for the reasons already given, the respective roles of
the courts in Hong Kong and the LegCo as prescribed by the Basic Law are
different. As the Chief Judge observed, LegCo is subject to the Basic Law.
By reason of article 104, there is no right on the part of any elected
member to assume office in LegCo without fulfilling the constitutional
requirement under that article and the refusal or neglect to take the oath
when duly requested would lead to vacation from office or disqualification.
Hence, it is not a matter of internal discipline. Nor is it a matter of
parliamentary privilege. Instead, it is a constitutional requirement which
our courts have the constitutional responsibility to adjudicate on in the
same way as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Powell v Mc Cormack,
supra.

79. The above analysis also resolves the
question as to identity of the decision maker under Section 21. Though the
oath administrator would have the power to administer the oath under
Section 19, he is not given any judicial role in the determination if an
oath taker has declined or neglected to take the oath. In this connection,
Section 21 does not say that an oath taker would be disqualified if he or
she had, in the opinion of the oath administrator, declined or neglected to
take the oath. I agree with the Chief Judge that paragraph 2(4) of the
Interpretation does not confer any judicial role upon the oath administrator
and any dispute on the application of Section 21 has to be determined by the
courts. It also follows that in the determination of such dispute, the
courts must conduct a full merit review with full opportunity for the
parties to adduce relevant and admissible evidence on the issues instead of
the limited review by way of traditional approach in a judicial review.

80. My analysis also reinforces the
conclusion of the Chief Judge that Section 15 of the Legislative Council
Ordinance is not exhaustive as to the circumstances in which a member is
disqualified. Though the scope of Section 73 is of little significance in
the present appeals (as 2 sets of proceedings have been commenced in respect
of each Interested Party), it would be helpful if we can give some guidance
on the interface between Section 73 and Section 21J.

81. In my view, these statutory
jurisdictions have a common origin in the prerogative writ of quo warranto
by which the authority of a person holding a public office could be
challenged in courts. In Hong Kong, the prerogative writ has become
obsolete and been largely (if not wholly) overtaken by statutory
jurisdictions. Section 21J is a general provision, applicable to any public
office created by any enactment whilst Section 73 specifically applies to a
person acting or claiming to be entitled to act as a member of LegCo.
Proceedings under Section 21J must be brought by way of judicial review,
see Section 21K(1) of the High Court Ordinance and they are subject to the
rules governing applications for judicial review. Leave is therefore
required and it is subject to the usual time constraint in applications for
judicial review. On the other hand, Section 73 is to be brought by way of
some other form of civil proceedings and leave is not required. However,
the time limit is 6 months: section 73(2) must be construed purposively as
referring to 6 months from the date on which the person first acted or
claimed to be entitled to act whilst disqualified, otherwise the time limit
will be meaningless. Further, Section 73 proceedings can only be brought by
an elector or the Secretary for Justice, see Section 73(1). In the case of
proceedings by an elector, such proceedings would be stayed pending the
payment of security for costs, a sum to be ordered by the court which shall
not exceed $20,000 in respect of each member challenged, see Section 73(5)
and (6).

82. Section 73(7) provides that proceedings
within the scope of that section can only be brought in accordance with that
section. In other words, it would not be open to persons coming within the
scope of this section to bring proceedings by other means like an
application for judicial review under Section 21J.

83. However, the Court of Final Appeal in
Albert Ho v Leung Chun Ying v Ho Chun Yan, Albert (2013) 16 HKCFAR 735
held that election petition is not the only means to challenge an election
and judicial review is an available alternative for those who are not
eligible to bring proceedings under section 33 of the Chief Executive
Election Ordinance. By the same token, it may be arguable
that Section 73(7) does not preclude someone who is not an elector to
commence proceedings under Section 21J in respect of a disqualified
legislator. As the Chief Judge observed, the Chief Executive is not a
person who is entitled to proceed under Section 73. He has to proceed under
Section 21J to seek the remedy of declaration and injunction against the
Interested Parties in HCAL 185/2016.

84. In any event, given that Section 73 was
enacted to protect members of the LegCo against unlimited challenges to
their offices (by way of security for costs and time limit for application),
I believe even in cases where an applicant is outside the scope of that
section and an application is brought by way of judicial review, the court
must bear such protection in mind in assessing whether leave should be
granted. In particular, given that judicial review should not be permitted
when an alternative remedy by way of Section 73 is available, the court
should consider whether an applicant who is not an elector in the
constituency of the member concerned should be allowed to make the challenge
and enquire whether the Secretary for Justice or any elector is willing to
bring proceedings under Section 73. The court must also examine the locus
standi of such an applicant carefully if neither the Secretary for Justice
nor any elector in that constituency is willing to bring proceedings under
Section 73.

Hon Poon JA:

85. I agree with the judgment of the Chief
Judge and the judgment of Lam VP. I would like to add a few words of my own
on the principle of non-intervention in the Hong Kong context.

86. As the Court of Final Appeal pointed
out in Leung Kwok Hung, supra, at [32], the common law principle of
non-intervention is necessarily subject to the constitutional requirements
in the Basic Law. As our written constitution, the Basic law is supreme.
It binds all organs and branches of the government, including LegCo. The
court is the guardian of the Basic Law. The court is
constitutionally tasked to protect the provisions of the Basic Law and to
ensure that all governmental organs and branches, including LegCo, stay
within its bounds.

87. Being subject to the Basic Law, LegCo
must uphold and abide by its provisions, always acting within its framework
and fulfilling its constitutional requirements. So must all LegCo Members,
whether they are elected from functional constituencies or
geographical constituencies through direct elections. When disputes arise
as to whether LegCo has acted in breach of the
constitutional requirements in the Basic Law, such as passing a law which is
contrary to certain provisions of the Basic Law, or whether individual LegCo
Members have breached the constitutional requirements as mandated in the
Basic Law, such as the present, the court has a constitutional duty to
adjudicate and rule on the matters. In so doing, the court does not seek to
undermine the authority or function of LegCo as the legislature or diminish
the mandate that the electors gave to the LegCo Members concerned. Rather
the court ensures that LegCo or the Members concerned exercise their powers
lawfully in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the Basic
Law. Only thus can the public confidence in LegCo be maintained. Only
thus can the integrity of the very many important acts performed by LegCo be
preserved.

Hon Cheung CJHC:

88. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed
with costs to all other parties (including the LegCo President for his costs
for the hearing on 17 November 2016) together with a certificate for 3
counsel. The costs order is made on a nisi basis and any application to
vary it shall be dealt with by written submissions only.

89. As indicated at the conclusion of the
hearing, we will hear any application for leave to appeal to the Court of
Final Appeal tomorrow at 9:30 am. All time requirements are abridged
accordingly, and we will accept undertakings to file and serve the formal
documents in lieu of actual filing or service before the hearing so long as
draft documents are made available to the court and the opposite parties in
advance.

This afternoon, Hong Kong Indigenous
set up a street booth at the intersection of Ap Lei Street and Kwei
Lin Street in the Sham Shui Po district. At first, they did not draw
much attention. Then they were surrounded by a bunch of middle-aged
uncles who expressed dissatisfaction with the four Hong Kong
Indigenous members present. Obscenities were flying around as the
uncles cursed Hong Kong Indigenous for "causing chaos in Hong Kong".
The uncles called the Hong Kong Indigenous people "Chinese traitors"
and demanded the removal of the surgical masks worn by the workers.

One uncle said: "Fuck you mother! You
call yourself a Hongkonger? Fuck your mother's cunt! You say that you
are a Hongkonger? Have you no shame?" Another uncle told the masked
Hong Kong Indigenous members: "Take off your masks! Be forthright! If
you are forthright, there is no fucking need to wear masks!"

As more and more people clustered
around to watch, the police came to maintain order. The police told
the uncles to calm down and assisted Hong Kong Indigenous to leave.
The police said: "Dear neighbors, please don't cause unnecessary
complications! Please make some way!" But the uncles were still riled
up, shouting: "Make way for them to crawl away! Leave! Leave! Scram!"

The four Hong Kong Indigenous members
maintained their calm and did not quarrel with the uncles. As they
left under police escort, an uncle said: "I want to ask you why you
don't go to Beijing ... if you hate China so much, you should go to
Tiananmen Square! Don't come here! We don't welcome you!"

On Facebook, Hong Kong Indigenous
wrote that their volunteers set up street booths in Sham Shui Po, Tai
Wai and Sha Tin today to explain to the citizens about the oath of
office brouhaha and the implications of the Interpretation of the
Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. In
Sham Shui Po, their workers were provoked maliciously and pushed
around, and some flags and poles were damaged. In consideration of the
personal safety of the Hong Kong Indigenous volunteers and the
citizens, the Sham Shui Po event was terminated prematurely.

- As always, when you need the police
to extract you from an angry mob, you call them Uncles. When you don't
want the police to block your way, you call them Canines.

- As always, they wear masks while
exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly as guaranteed by
the Basic Law.

- What exactly are they afraid of
such that they have to wear masks? Are they afraid that their parents
will see them on television and then withhold their daily allowance
money?

- In the video, there is an old man
siding with Hong Kong Indigenous.

This man is a celebrity. Previously,
he was photographed attending a banquet wearing the t-shirt of the
DLLM Orchid (= a homonym of "Fuck Your Mother's Stinking Rotten Cunt")
organization. Then he was interviewed on television in the role of the
parent of a student at the Pui Ling School of the Precious Blood to
express his support the freedom of expression for foul-mouthed teacher
Alpais Lam without identifying that they are both with the
DLLM Orchid. P.S. The bespectacled woman was also present in the Sham
Shui Po video.

- Born In Times of Chaos Facebook:
According to tips from Internet users, the four troublemakers are all
unemployed welfare recipients who normally hang around the 7/11
Convenience Store on Fuk Wing Street. According to information, they
were paid $200 each to cause trouble at the Hong Kong Indigenous
street booth today.

- What is this? Everything is based
upon innuendos? Information from anonymous Internet users?

- This is as good as the other
innuendo that the DLLM Orchid old man is either the father of
foul-mouthed teacher Alpais Lam and/or the former district councilor
who lost his post to DAB legislative councilor Chan Kam-lam.

Yesterday, 49-year-old entertainer
William So Wing Hong announced that he and his wife Anita are
expecting a baby. He said: "It is a boy. But I don't want the boy to
be like me. It is better that he is more like his mother. As Ka-keung
said, even if he isn't going to become a model, he can get my musical
and fashion talents. But the future is too much to worry about. I
don't know what the world will be like when my son grows up. What I
need to do is not to create more rebellious persons for society.
Simply put, I don't want to raise a Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. I
want thte boy to know right from wrong. You can be rebellious but you
cannot reject your ancestry and do things that divides the nation. If
he does that, I will personally punish him. Therefore I will learn to
bring up my son well just like my elders. Even if the boy does not
make a great contribution to society, at least he won't be disrupting
social peace."

William So said: "I noticed that
someone said that as a soon-to-be parent, I did not consider the
feelings of the parents of those whom I criticized. I want to ask:
When those two young people charged into the Legislative Council with
the blue banner shouting 'Shina' and 'Hong Kong is not China', did
they ever consider the feelings of all the people in China?"

He said: "I am very sorry if what I
said caused the parents of the two young persons to be unhappy. But I
will not apologize, because those two were really wrong and they did
not apologize."

Leung Chung-hang quoted William So's
song <I don't want to be happy by myself>: "I am unrestrained and I
think highly of myself. I don't care if a certain guy doesn't like
it."

Leung Chung-hang also wrote:
"Although I do not take drugs, I cause my mother to worry all the
time. And I am unable to share the family load with her. So I feel
ashamed." His supporters agreed, and made comments such as: "Drug
abusers tend to really patriotic" etc.

With respect to the criticisms of his
comments on Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching, William So responded:
"First of all, I respect and I thank my fans for stopping and deleting
those comments. I told my fans not to bother, because everyone has the
freedom of expression. They can say whatever they want, and I am not
going to die because of it! But it is pathetic that they they make the
same comments ten times in a row. Hey, I am not blind!"

Is he unhappy? He said: "Buddhists
learn to forgive people. They have their positions. I accidentally
stepped on their idols and it is natural that they should be angry.
Someday, they will eventually understand that Hong Kong needs
harmony!"

Is he sorry for saying it? He said:
"In my life, I have no regrets. I have no regrets! I, William So, am a
forthright person. When I am wrong, I will admit it. If I am going to
fight, I will stand and fight. I won't bring my team to Sai Wan and
then leave in a taxi. This is the right attitude. How else can I teach
my son?"

A friend told him that Internet users
are bringing up his prior drug offense. He said: "I did it. I was
arrested. There is no extradition treaty between Hong Kong and Taiwan,
and I can choose not to return to Taiwan. But I went back to accept
the legal consequences! Recently I applied for a visa to travel to the
United States. I received a telephone call from the immigration
officer who told me to do a physical exam. The report showed that I
was drug-negative. I ultimately got my visa."

(Lingnan
University Public Governance Programme) 1,015 Hong Kong
residents aged 18 or over were interviewed by telephone October 3-10,
2016. Telephone numbers were randomly selected from the directory and
then the last two digits of each telephone number is randomized. When
contact is made with a household, an eligible individual is randomly
selected within the household. The response rate was 32.1%.

Q1. How do you rate the legislative
efficiency of this Legislative Council compared to the previous one?
2.6%: A lot better
16.9%: Somewhat better
31.8%: About the same
19.1%: Somewhat worse
13.2%: A lot worse
16.1%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q2. How do you rate the relationship
between the executive and legislative branches during this Legislative
Council term compared to the previous one?
1.9%: A lot better
13.1%: Somewhat better
31.1%: About the same
23.6%: Somewhat worse
14.8%: A lot worse
15.3%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q3. How would rate the monitoring of
the government during this Legislative Council term compared to the
previous one?
5.0%: A lot better
34.1%: Somewhat better
30.1%: About the same
10.2%: Somewhat worse
7.6%: A lot worse
12.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q4. Some people think that
filibustering at the Legislative Council delays the legislative
process without any positive use. Other people think that
filibustering stops the passage of objectionable legislation.
41.6%: Agree with the first position
42.9%: Agree with the second position
10.2%: Agree with neither position
4.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q5. Some people thin that the China
Liaison Office engages in mediating legislative election campaigns and
therefore violates One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong Ruled By Hong
Kong People. Other people think that this only shows that the Central
Government cares about the Hong Kong Legco elections.
60.4%: Agree with the first position
22.3%: Agree with the second position
5.6%: Agree with neither position
10.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.9%: Refused to answer

Q6. The recent Legco election had the
highest voter turnout in history. What is the main reason?
16.9%: Dissatisfaction with government
11.7%: More young people voted
10.7%: More people care about society/politics
8.4%: Dissatisfaction with the current situation
4.1%: Everybody wants to express their opinions
3.4%: Influence of Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement
2.6%: Dissatisfaction with CY Leung
2.2%: Dissatisfaction with the past Legislative Council term
2.2%: Intervention by the Central Government
1.7%: Increase in civic awareness
1.6%: More young people care about society/politics
1.1%: More voters
1.1%: More young people were candidates
1.0%: Awakening of citizens
0.9%: Citizens want to vote for their favorite legislators
0.8%: More older people voted
0.7%: Dissatisfaction with the pro-establishment camp
0.7%: More election candidates
0.6%: Opposition to filibustering
0.5%: Dissatisfaction with livelihood issues
0.5%: Troublemaking
17.7%: Other reasons
8.6%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q7. Compared to the period when
Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in
the Hong Kong SAR government?
2.9%: A lot more confident
9.7%: Somewhat more confident
24.0%: Neither more or less
24.0%: Somewhat less confident
35.8%: A lot less confident
3.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q8. Compared to the period when
Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in
the Legislative Council?
2.5%: A lot more confident
10.8%: Somewhat more confident
31.2%: Neither more or less
26.3%: Somewhat less confident
22.1%: A lot less confident
7.1%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q9. Compared to the period when
Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in
the courts?
2.5%: A lot more confident
8.3%: Somewhat more confident
49.7%: Neither more or less
20.7%: Somewhat less confident
10.7%: A lot less confident
7.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q10. Compared to the period when
Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in
the Hong Kong Police?
5.8%: A lot more confident
12.6%: Somewhat more confident
32.1%: Neither more or less
21.8%: Somewhat less confident
23.3%: A lot less confident
4.2%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q11. Compared to the period when
Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in
the Independent Commission Against Corruption?
2.2%: A lot more confident
7.6%: Somewhat more confident
32.2%: Neither more or less
27.9%: Somewhat less confident
24.3%: A lot less confident
5.6%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q12. Compared to the period when
Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in
the Central Government?
5.6%: A lot more confident
7.7%: Somewhat more confident
35.8%: Neither more or less
17.0%: Somewhat less confident
29.7%: A lot less confident
4.0%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q15. Some people think that
discussion of Hong Kong independence arose because Hongkongers are
unfamiliar with China as a country. Other people think that it arose
because of the status of One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong in
recent years.
23.4%: Agree with the first position
40.4%: Agree with the second position
15.3%: Agree with both positions
13.0%: Disagree with both positions
7.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.5%: Refused to answer

Q16. Some people think: Hong Kong
independence is obviously against the Basic Law, so there is nothing
to discuss about it. Therefore, secondary schools should not allow the
discussion of Hong Kong independence inside the schools. Other people
think: Discussing Hong Kong independence in schools will help increase
understanding of Hong Kong independence.
31.3%: Agree with first position
56.9%: Agree with second position
6.8%: Agree with neither position
4.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q17. Some people think: Hong Kong
independence involves national sovereignty. As a matter of principle,
the Central Government will not tolerate discussion of Hong Kong
independence. We must trust that citizens have the ability to tell
right from wrong and therefore the Central Government should allow
discussions.
22.8%: Agree with first position
66.7%: Agree with second position
5.6%: Agree with neither position
4.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q18. Do you think that people who
advocate Hong Kong independence should be allowed to become
Legislative Councilors?
41.3%: Yes
40.9%: No
17.%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Internet comments:

- It's all in the wording of the
question. Q18 was: "Do you think that people who advocate Hong Kong
independence should be allowed to become Legislative Councilors?" and
the results were 41.3%: Yes and 40.9% No. Rewrite the question as: "Do
you think that people who read 'Republic of China' as 'Re-fucking of
Shina' in their oaths of office because of their Ap Lei Chau accents
should be allowed to become Legislative Councilors?" and what do you
think you will get?

- This poll was fielded October 3-10,
2016 before the National People's Congress Standing Committee issued
its Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.

Many people agree that Chief
Executive Leung Chun-ying has a face that is hard to read. You can
never tell what he is thinking or feeling. Its not exactly a poker
face because a poker face is impassive, without any expression. But
Leungs face is not always expressionless. He sometimes smiles when
he meets the media. His face alternates between a smile and
impassiveness, nothing else. There is never anger even when he
strongly criticizes something or someone in front of the media. He
just looks impassively stern, in contrast to US president-elect
Donald Trump, who scowls when he is angry and glares at his
opponents.

Unlike Leung, Financial Secretary
John Tsang Chun-wah doesnt wear his face like a mask. It was easy
to tell from his face during the September joint press conference
with Leung on the Wang Chau housing controversy that he didnt want
to be there. He wore a constant black look. Even when he said: You
always agree with your boss, no question about that, you could tell
he was mocking Leung.

Leungs smile was particularly
broad last week when he talked to the Hong Kong media in Peru right
after his 45-minute meeting with President Xi Jinping. He even
chuckled when a reporter asked him if he was disappointed that Xi
did not raise the issue of him seeking a second term as chief
executive. Since his face is impossible to read, its hard to guess
the reasons behind his confident smile. It could be that he
interpreted Xis body language as a sign that Beijing will back him
for a second term. Or it could be that Xis body language was so
neutral that he had to mask his dismay with a smile.

Either way, Hong Kong reporters
were totally naïve to expect any clear signal from Xi during the
Peru meeting when Leung was accompanied by his assistants, including
the director of the chief executives office Edward Yau Tang-wah.
How could anyone seriously think Xi would discuss the chief
executive election or express support for Leung in a setting like
that? Just because former president Jiang Zemin made a point of
having a high-profile handshake with Tung Chee-hwa to signal
Beijings choice as Hong Kongs first post-colonial chief executive,
it doesnt mean such handshakes carry similar weight nowadays. That
was 20 years ago under very different circumstances and a different
leader.

It should now be clear to all those
not swayed by speculative headlines that Beijing has yet to decide
who it prefers as the next chief executive. People also need to
understand that opinion polls on who is the most popular among the
likely candidates are pointless. It is pointless, for example, to
compare Leung with retired judge Woo Kwok-hing or Tsang with Regina
Ip Lau Suk-yee. Such polls only make sense in a one person, one vote
election but no sense in an election decided by an Election
Committee of 1,200 people, which is heavily influenced by Beijing.

Recent polls have shown Tsang to be
the most popular among Hong Kong people, with Leung and the others
trailing far behind. But why do over 60 percent of those polled
prefer Tsang to all the others? The answer is very simple. People
believe he can heal the divisions in society that they believe Leung
caused. They believe he can give them the so-called genuine
democracy that Leung failed to give them. They believe he will fight
for Hong Kongs interests whereas Leung sucked up to Beijing instead
of standing up to it.

Tsangs 60 percent support comes
mostly from the opposition camp and even from localists because he
had said he supports localism in the context of local values.
Support from this sector could, in a way, be a kiss of death because
it is this very sector that Beijing is wary of. Even if Beijing,
through the Election Committee, factors in popularity when deciding
who to favor as the next leader, Tsangs high ratings would quickly
dissipate once it becomes apparent that he is no more able to
deliver the things that Leung failed to deliver.

The opposition camp has made its
bottom line very clear. It wants Beijing to withdraw the so-called
White Paper policy document on Hong Kong and the August 31, 2014
political reform framework. It wants true democracy with no
screening of chief executive candidates, and it wants
self-determination in the context that Beijing controls only defense
and foreign affairs.

This bottom line was barely
possible when Leung became chief executive in 2012 and it is
virtually impossible now with the rise of the independence movement.
The opposition made it more impossible by siding with independence
advocates Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang in their fight against
being disqualified as legislators.

Lets suppose the election contest
is between Leung and Tsang. It is certain Tsang will be bombarded
with questions about whether he will ask Beijing to scrap the August
31 framework and allow genuine democracy, whether he will enact
Article 23 national security legislation, and whether he supports
self-determination. If he doesnt give the answers the opposition
camp wants to hear, his popularity rating will plummet.

In reality, such a contest will not
be about policies but personalities. It doesnt matter even if Leung
is proven as a more capable leader. Leung is loathed but Tsang is
liked. Thats all that matters in public opinion polls. The
opposition loathes Leung because he faces them down but likes Tsang
because he is laid-back and easier to handle. But the question is
will Beijing want a chief executive who the opposition embraces as
one of its own.

Before Secretary of Finance John
Tsang traveled to Beijing, rumors about about the Central Government
giving the red light to Tsang about the Chief Executive election.
But then it was rumored that later that while Beijing does not
support Tsang's candidacy, it does not bar him either. Thus, Tsang
will resign in mid-December.

I asked about and found out the
details of the situation. Earlier, it was said that the Central
Government "did not encourage" Tsang but those close to Tsang said
that it was a "yellow light" as opposed to the "red light" to stop
him. Tsang was all set to go ahead with a "yellow light."

My source said that there is no
need to debate whether this was a "red light" or a "yellow light."
When Tsang got to Beijing, he met with Wang Guangya, director of the
Hong Kong Macau Affairs Office of the State Council. Wang told him
that the Central Government does not support his candidacy. Thus,
this is a clear NO. There is no room for further interpretation. It
is wrong to say that Beijing does not oppose Tsang's candidacy.
Beijing opposes it PERIOD.

Chief Executive
Leung Chun-ying was publicly abused by a teenager using the f word
during a sharing session with young people on Saturday.

The young man,
surnamed Chan, was among hundreds of secondary school and university
students invited to the annual Youth Summit organised by the
governments Commission on Youth.

During the
one-hour forum, more than a dozen youngsters were given the chance to
ask Leung questions. When Chan was picked by the moderator, he took
the opportunity to accuse Leungs administration of cracking down on
young peoples participation in social movements such as the Occupy
demonstrations and protests against cross-border parallel traders.

During the
Occupy Central movement, how come the government used tear gas on a
group of bare-handed teenagers? he said. Chan said such a move went
against calls by the government for teenagers to participate more in
social affairs.

At the end of
his question section, Chan suddenly became emotional. I just cant
resist any more, I am so sorry ... he said, before shouting the f
word at the chief executive.

Leung did not
directly respond to the swearing, but said cases of police
intervention during protests in Hong Kong were much fewer than in
other countries. The situation should not be over-generalised. Hong
Kong police have been very restrained, Leung said. He said he
encouraged the citys young people to use any means to express their
ideas  as long as it was legal.

However, when
asked by a female student whether he would consider enabling the
comments section on his Facebook page to offer a platform for
youngsters to voice their views, Leung said he would like to do so if
people could express their opinions rationally. Even if they are
against me or the SAR government, there is absolutely no problem, he
said.

But the top
official said the activities of people on Facebook tended to be too
simple and therefore had little value. Even a post of me visiting
elderly homes was given thousands of angry faces I dont think these
kinds of activities have much reference value, he said.

During the Q&A
session, a man said that it is a good thing for young people to participate
in the Umbrella Movement, but the government suppressed them. The
authorities fired tear gas at the demonstrators, and a demonstrator was
accused of using her breast to attack the police. The man said: "Fuck your
mother" to express his discontent. The workers asked the man to leave. The
man left on his own. Leung responded that there are many demonstrations in
Hong Kong, but very few of them are stopped by the government.

A male middle-school
student said that young people oppose the government because they don't
trust the government. He said that legislators don't know how to do screen
captures on computers, they don't know how to do live broadcasts and they
don't play computer games. However, legislators can vote to pass Internet
Article 23!"

A female student said
that Leung was deleting comments on his Facebook. She demanded that Leung
open up comments again. Leung said that he finds it incomprehensible that
photos on his Facebook of a visit to a senior citizen centre should draw
several thousand angry faces. Leung said that smooth communication must be
held in a civilized and rational manner.

Video transcript:
Chan: "And then I wanted to say ... how come the government is not
supporting and caring about, but is suppressing instead? Finally I want to
say ... I know that I am out of time ... I really cannot hold it back ... I
am really sorry ... I fuck your mother!"

Chan: "They are
oppressing young people, and not caring and supporting. They are oppressing
young people. They are not oppressing. For example, like the Umbrella
Revolution, a group of unarmed young people were tear-gassed. Finally I
really cannot hold back ... I am really sorry ... I fuck your mother!"

Leung: "Hong Kong has
a lot of demonstration and marches to express opinions, whether they are
outdoors or indoors like our meeting today. It is rare for the government to
take the so-called suppression action for the police to control the
situation. We absolutely should not be biased about this. The Hong Kong
police and the government realizes that traffic is really tight in such a
constricted area. The police has been very restrained. I hope that Yu-hin
(the speaker) knows this."

Internet comments:

- Whenever something
likes this happens to a pro-establishment/pro-China person, the Yellow
Ribbon pundits always say that the victim needs to seriously reflect on his
failures which led to such verbal/physical attacks.

Whenever something
like this happens to a pro-'democracy' person, the Yellow Ribbon pundits say
that the police should be called in to the arrest the perpetrator (see, for
example, the Shoe
Throwing Incident) in order to protect our freedom of speech.

- Mr. Chan asked:
During the Occupy Central movement, how come the government used tear gas
on a group of bare-handed teenagers? Indeed, the whole world saw how the
government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUTqQmF_vU. To date, the government
has not been able to provide a reasonable explanation.

Mr. Chan said that the
authorities fired tear gas and then accused one demonstrator of using her
breast to attack a policeman. This was the case of Ng Lai-ying.

- Actually this is a
CHAN SAID LEUNG SAID kind of thing here. We cannot resolve who is right or
wrong. We need a neutral referee. Hey, Chris Patten is in town? Let's ask
him whether the police can use tear gas against unarmed citizens. P.S. A
search for "tear+gas+police"
yielded 216,000 results.

- There is no need to
respect CY Leung because he doesn't respect the people of Hong Kong.

- I completely agree
that if you don't respect others, others should not respect you either. So
when the Yellow Ribbons paralyzed Admiralty and Mong Kok, did they respect
the people of Hong Kong? When 90% of the people of Hong Kong want them to
go away, did they respect this popular will?

- If the Yellow
Ribbons want "genuine universal suffrage" and the National People's
Congress Standing Committee is standing in the way with the August 31st
resolution, then take it up with the NPCSC -- go to Beijing and occupy the
Great Hall of the People in Tiananmen Square. Why occupy Mong Kok instead?

- CY Leung doesn't
respect the people of Hong Kong? What did he do? Does he say "Fuck your
mother" to everyone that he sees?

- It is not that you
don't want to listen to what young people want to say. It is just that the
stream-of-consciousness rant is incoherent. What was this Chan person trying
to say?

- Any Joe can use
curse words. But to what purpose? What was this about?

- Any Joe can use
curse words. But not all Joe's slur when they speak. So this Joe is
especially hard to understand.

- When this
generation thinks that something is right or wrong, there can be no IF's,
BUT's or OR's. They don't know and they don't care. They just want to have
it their way. What is the point of communication if everything is an
ULTIMATUM of
MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY? If they are incapable of listening, then
why should anyone bother to talk to them?

- Mr. Chan probably
felt very good after saying "I fuck your mother" to CY Leung. Yes, it was
the perfect performance. And then what? If he wants to, he will probably
have a good political career as a Legislative Councilor.

- At least this case
proves that freedom of expression is alive and well in Hong Kong. But to
what purpose?

- It is people like
these who elected Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. What did you expect?

- Why is there so much
unhappiness among young people here? Here is the standard litany of reasons:

- I want to travel
overseas. In October, I went to Japan. In November, I went to Australia.
In December, I want to go to Maldives. But I don't have the money and I
don't have any vacation time left. I am so depressed. The government
should institute mandatory paid vacations for citizens.

- I am single and I
want my own apartment. Why is the waiting list for single-person public
housing units so long? I want it now! I don't want to wait!

- I am still using
an iPhone 6S. Everybody else has an iPhone 7 already. I feel so out of it!
Why doesn't the government have a purchase program for young people?

- I only have two
credit cards. Everybody that I know has at least 6. Why aren't the banks
giving me more credit cards? The banks should be made to give credit cards
to everybody.

- Five years after I
graduated from university, I still haven't been able to pay any of my
student loans. The government must forgive all outstanding student loans
because this is clearly not good for my mental health.

- Everybody I know
says that you can get a girl to climb into bed on the first date. Why
haven't I been able to do that? I feel miserable. Is there something
really wrong with me?

- I am twenty-nine
years old. I own nothing significant -- no apartment, no car, no money, no
jewelry, no pets. But I do own 59 pairs of special edition athletic shoes.
The problem is the most exclusive editions are reserved only for sale in
America, Europe and Japan, and our government refuses to do anything about
it.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying today
dismissed rumours one of his key ministers had got the nod from
Beijing to be Hong Kongs next leader after President Xi Jinping
offered an eyebrow-raising handshake to the financial secretary at a
key international meeting last month.

Speculation that finance chief John
Tsang Chun-wah could be a dark horse for the 2017 chief executive
election mounted after Xi approached and wordlessly shook hands with
him at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank meeting in Beijing
last month, attended by 57 founding member states.

Last month,
Tsang laughed off speculation that he was tipped to be the citys next
leader. The president [Xi] also shook hands with a lot of other
people, but those moments were not captured by the television
cameras, Tsang replied when asked if he saw any political signal from
Xis gesture. But he sidestepped a question about whether he was
interested in the top job. Instead, Tsang asked the reporter who posed
the question: Have you asked other people [the same question]?

Financial Secretary John Tsang has
told local media not to look too deeply into his handshake with
Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Hangzhou. I think
this is a very normal thing, he said. I think meeting each other,
shaking hands, and making conversation is very normal. He had
previously shaken hands with the Chinese leader last June in Beijing,
leading to speculation that Beijing favoured him as the next Chief
Executive of Hong Kong. I thanked the president for giving us the
chance, inviting us to participate in this conference, and we did not
talk about anything else, said Tsang. He refuted questions over
whether they had spoken about the position of Chief Executive.

The speculation stems from historical
moments dating back to 1996. Tung Chee-hwa won a handshake from then
Chinese president Jiang Zemin while campaigning for Chief Executive
elections in January 1996. Tung successfully became the citys first
leader in 1997. After Tung stepped down in 2005, former chief
executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen attended a financial forum in Beijing
where former president Hu Jintao offered a six-second long handshake.

President
Xi Jinping has for the first time sent a forceful message to Hong
Kong against independence advocacy, urging Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying
to ensure stability and safeguard national unity.

After
their 45-minute meeting on the sidelines on the Apec summit in the
Peruvian capital, Leung said on Monday that they did not discuss his
possible re-election bid when Hong Kong chooses its leader next March.

Instead,
he said Xi was very concerned about Hong Kong, but also very
supportive of the Leung administrations handling of the row over two
pro-independence lawmakers who were disqualified for insulting China
while taking their oaths.

[Xi]
fully acknowledged my work and the [governments] work ... including
the recent handling of the Legco oath-taking [controversy], Leung
said.

Very
simply put  and very forcefully  the president said there is no room
whatsoever for Hong Kong independence under the one country, two
systems arrangement.

Professor
Lau Siu-kai, a leading Beijing adviser on Hong Kong affairs, said the
central government wanted to avoid any room for speculation about its
preference for the next chief executive at this critical timing.

What is
noteworthy is that unlike on similar occasions in the past, Xi didnt
give positive comments on Leungs work before the cameras, and those
remarks were only carried in the Xinhua report released subsequently,
Lau said.

Chinas
official Xinhua news agency reported that, while fully acknowledging
the work of Leung and his government, the president told Leung to lead
his team to continue to implement policies in a comprehensive manner,
to build broad social consensus, to focus on boosting economic
development and improving the peoples well-being, to safeguard
national unity, and to maintain social and political stability.

Asked if
he felt let down that Xi had no made comment on his possible
aspirations for a second term as chief executive, Leung replied: I
had no plan to raise any of my personal matters with the president in
this meeting today, nor did I expect him to say anything about me
standing for re-election or not.

During the
photo opportunity at the start of their meeting in Lima at the hotel
where he was staying, the president smiled as he briefly shook hands
with Leung.

It took
20 to 30 hours to fly here, right? It took a total of 27 hours, Xi
said, engaging in small talk with Leung in front of the cameras as the
Hong Kong leader compared the difference in travelling time to Lima
between Beijing and Hong Kong.

Also
watched was the seating arrangement, after Leungs duty visit to
Beijing last year, when Xi sat at the far end of the table with the
chief executive on the side to signal the presidents superior status
as the head of state. This time the pair sat side by side.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is set to
meet President Xi Jinping at 7am today (HK time) during the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit in Peru. Leung is perceived by many to be
seeking reelection in March, though if he does he will likely face
challenges from several candidates, including retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

Leung greeted Xi at the airport when the
president arrived in Lima on Saturday morning and shook hands with him for
3.5 seconds as they talked and smiled. It was their first handshake since
Leung's duty visit to Beijing in December.

Some commentators said the meeting should
be closely observed for signals on whether Xi will give his blessing to
Leung for a second term in office, although Leung earlier said they will
focus on the APEC summit rather than Hong Kong affairs.

There was similar speculation when
Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun- wah shook hands with Xi this year and
last year. After Tsang shook hands with Xi in the inauguration of the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing in June, Leung also greeted Xi at
the airport when they attended the APEC meeting in the Philippines.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
yesterday criticized claims that President Tsai Ing-wens (蔡英文) APEC envoy
and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had met at the APEC leaders summit
in Lima, Peru, although it took credit for what it called a chance
encounter.

KMT Culture and Communications Committee
deputy director Hu Wen-chi (胡文琦) told a morning news conference in Taipei
that People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soongs (宋楚瑜) 10-minute
conversation with Xi on Saturday was only a chance encounter, nothing like
the formal meetings that former vice presidents Lien Chan (連戰) and Vincent
Siew (蕭萬長) held with Chinese leaders when they attended previous APEC
summits as special envoys of the president.

The government should refrain from boasting
about the encounter, Hu said.

The lack of a formal meeting between Soong
and Xi was due to Tsais refusal to acknowledge the so-called 1992
consensus, a tacit understanding between Beijing and the KMT that both
sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge there is one China, with each side
having its own interpretation of what China means.

Given that Beijing denied Soong an
opportunity to be photographed with Xi and has categorized the pairs talk
as simple, natural greeting exchanges rather than a Soong-Xi meeting,
the PFP founder should not try to pass off fish eyes for pearls (魚目混珠), Hu
said, using a Chinese idiom meaning to present a fake as something real.

- Closing
ceremony group photo; Peru president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski is center of
front row, Xi Jinping to his immediate right and Leung Chun-ying to his
immediate left. Putin and Obama are in the backrow.

But before
attach any significance to the proximity and importance of Xi-Leung,
please remember that the arrangement is based upon alphabetical order:
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia,
Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua-New Guinea, Peru, The
Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States
and Vietnam. As long as APEC has the same 21 Member Economies, China will
be the right of the host and Hong Kong to the left of the host in the
family photo. In 2008, Hu Jintao to the right and Donald Tsang to the
left. So please calm down!

Financial
Secretary John Tsang has pushed back against rumours that Beijing told him
not to run for chief executive. The rumour, written by an anonymous
commentator, was first published in pro-Beijing newspaper Sing Tao on
Tuesday. Other pro-Beijing newspapers followed suit, saying that after
Tsang informed Beijing of his intention to run for Hong Kongs top job, he
received a negative reply. Tsang clarified on Tuesday: No one has
discouraged me [from running]. However, he did not deny or admit to the
speculation that he wrote to Beijing indicating his intention to resign
and join the race for chief executive.

Veteran commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu
told Apple Daily that typically Beijing would not tell a particular
contender not to run even if it did not want that person to participate.
If that person becomes bitter and publicises [Beijings message],
wouldnt Beijing give the impression that it is directly meddling in Hong
Kongs elections? Lau said.

Over the past
couple of days, attention has been drawn once again to John Tsang. It is
said that his campaign team is in place, with a former senior government
official to serve as the campaign manager.

But once again
we are hearing footsteps but somehow nobody actually appears. The key here
is the attitude of Beijing. The rumor was that John Tsang had inquired
Beijing through a friend in the banking sector. Beijing gave a yellow
light, which is neither a red light to oppose or a green light to support.
Instead, the yellow light means that Beijing does not encourage John Tsang
to enter the race. It is said that John Tsang will go ahead in the
presence of yellow light.

This weekend,
John Tsang will travel to Beijing to meet with Wang Guangya, director of
the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council of the
People's Republic of China. It is said that he wanted to inform the
Central Government of his intention to resign and enter the election.

According to
an informed source, if John Tsang goes to see Wang Guangya, he will be
getting the red light instead of a green or yellow light. It is up to John
Tsang to decide what to do in the presence of the red light.

This informed
source said that no Chief Executive can function without the support of
the Central Government. A smart person will know not to proceed against
the red light.

When John
Tsang got a 2.5 second handshake with Xi Jinping, all the pundits
proclaimed Tsang to be the next Chief Executive. But now Xi Jinping has
met with CY Leung for 45 minutes behind closed doors. All of a sudden,
sour grapes are overflowing in the Yellow Ribbon media. If 2.5 seconds
makes for an anointment, then what is 45 minutes?

Of course,
they can always spin the opposite way -- Xi Jinping spent 45 minutes
haranguing CY Leung behind closed doors for failing to do his job! And
when CY Leung came out of the meeting seeming to be gloating, it must be
because his skin is as thick as dinosaur skin!

Hong Kongs last governor has torn
into pro-independence activists, saying it would be a tragedy if the
moral high ground achieved by student leaders in the 2014 Occupy
protests was lost because of pro-independence antics.

Chris Patten, who is in the city for
a short visit, accused such activists of diluting support for
democracy in Hong Kong.

However, he also lamented the slow
progress of democracy since the 1997 handover and suggested the
central government should have exercised restraint when considering an
interpretation of the Basic Law.

I still have great admiration for
those who campaign for democracy, but not for those whose campaign
dilutes support for democracy and makes a mockery of a serious
political argument, he said.

He was speaking
amid the ongoing oath-taking saga in the city. On October 12 localist
duo Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching pledged
allegiance to a Hong Kong nation and insulted China at a swearing-in
ceremony at the Legislative Council. Patten said taking an oath was a
serious matter and not something of a lark. In Britain, if you
dont take an oath, you cannot even join a club, he added.

It would be
dishonest, dishonourable and reckless of somebody like me, to pretend
that the case for democracy should be mixed up with an argument about
the independence of Hong Kong  something which is not going to
happen, something which dilutes support for democracy, and something
which has led to all sorts of antics which should not take place in a
mature society aiming to be a full democracy.

In a reference
to the Occupy protests, Patten said: Two years ago, many brave young
people in Hong Kong established moral high ground about democracy in
governance, and I think it would be a tragedy if that high ground was
lost because of a few antics. Patten also said it would be a mistake
to confuse the way people know the relationship between their
citizenship, freedoms and prosperity with headline-grabbing remarks
about independence.

Asked what he
had to say to young people who supported independence, he replied: I
would far prefer it if Chinese officials were having to discuss an
answerable case for greater democracy in Hong Kong, rather than
talking about the ... very unwise case of arguing for independence.

Lord Patten, the last British governor of
Hong Kong, has lambasted two lawmakers who were recently disqualified for
pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong nation, arguing that the burgeoning
independence movement in the Chinese territory is completely
counter-productive.

Lord Patten, who is in Hong Kong to give a
number of public lectures, told the Financial Times on Friday that taking an
oath was a serious matter and Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, who were
disqualified by a Hong Kong court earlier this month, were wrong to turn it
into a sort of student game.

More broadly, Lord Patten, who is now
chancellor of the University of Oxford, attacked the growing push for
independence and self-determination, supporters of which won around 20 per
cent of the vote in the legislative council election in September.

The danger is that they dissipate the
enormously strong moral position that they established in 2014 by confusing
the argument for a better form of government with the completely
counter-productive demands for independence which are bound to provoke a
backlash from China, he said.

He added: My strong, strong advice is that
they should get back to talking about governance and democracy and eschew
all this stuff about independence That is not going to happen and people
should recognise the dangers of pretending that it might.

Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of
Hong Kong, has said that the city will not win independence from China and
that such a campaign dilutes support for democracy.

I have great admiration for those who
campaign for democracy, but not those whose campaign dilutes support for
democracy and makes a mockery of a serious political argument, he said.

Patten appeared at the Foreign
Correspondents Club on Friday to give a speech on the world after Brexit
and election of Donald Trump, but he soon shifted to Hong Kong matters.
Patten, who left his leadership post in Hong Kong in 1997, said it was a
bit surprising that Hong Kongs democratic progress had not sped up. It
was supposed to take place at a steady rate, but the steady rate seems to be
pretty slow.

He said he supports sensible democratic
movements in Hong Kong, giving special mention to the Occupy protests of
2014 as a peaceful and mature campaign for democracy.

But he referred to his knowledge of the
Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984, noting that it included a
paragraph on Chinas national unity and territorial integrity.

It would be dishonest, dishonourable and
reckless of somebody like me to pretend that the case for democracy should
be mixed up with an argument about the independence of Hong Kong  something
which is not going to happen, something which dilutes support for democracy
and something which has led to all sorts of antics which should not take
place in a mature society aiming to be a full democracy, he said.

I think two years ago many
brave young people in Hong Kong established moral high ground about
democracy in governance and I think it would be a tragedy if that high
ground was lost because of the antics about so-called independence for Hong
Kong.

Patten was firm, saying that pledging
allegiance is a serious business. Taking oath isnt something of a lark,
he said. You wont take an oath, you cant join the club. Patten is now
the chancellor of the Oxford University. He said he took oaths several times
as the governor of Hong Kong, as a member of Britains parliament, and a
member of the House of Lords, among others.

He cited the example of the Sinn Féin
party, who would not pledge allegiance to the Queen. They were therefore
unable to take their place in parliament. Simple as that, said Patten.
And I would guess there are legislatures all over the world which have
similar requirements, he added.

Concluding his speech, he joked that he was
sorry to sound like a headmaster.

Nearly 40 years ago, when I visited
Moscow for the first time, my initial reaction was surprise.

The hotels and restaurants were so
poorly run that it seemed shocking that the military could be run
competently enough to pose a genuine threat to the Soviet Unions
adversaries. Yet we in the West feared the Red Army  and with good
reason.

Hong Kong, my favorite city, sends
the opposite message.

Its restaurants are run with
precision, and it boasts some of the worlds best hotels.

Surely any city that can look after
visitors so superbly should have nothing to worry about, except,
perhaps, how best to use the proceeds of its competence and
entrepreneurial genius.

But, again, things may not be quite
what they seem.

Hong Kongs success partly reflects
a fundamental moderation within the culture, a competency and
rationality that enables the city  an autonomous Chinese territory
 to thrive in a complex context.

But, when I visited Hong Kong last
month  my first visit since the momentous but abortive democracy
demonstrations of 2014  people seemed more nervous than they had in
some time.

The reason is that a fledgling
independence movement is shaking things up in Hong Kong.

It started with characteristically
moderate calls for greater democracy.

But menacing noises from China,
together with the Hong Kong governments failure to attempt a
sensible dialogue with its critics about governance concerns or
economic challenges, have driven many democracy activists to
extremism.

This is unwise.

The reality is that Hong Kong is
not an incipient nation-state, and it will not become one. China
would oppose this idea to the bitter end. It is not a fight Hong
Kong would win.

Instead, Hong Kong is a Chinese
city with a strong sense of identity as a free, plural, decent, and
open society under the rule of law.

This is what democracy activists
should be discussing. This is where they are on sound footing and
can advance positive goals.

As soon as those activists begin
demanding independence, however, they risk splintering their support
and losing the moral high ground that they gained with their
campaign in 2014.

This plays into the hands of the
Chinese Communist Party and its stooges in Hong Kong.

As if demanding independence were
not damaging enough to the pro-democracy cause, some independence
campaigners are using brash tactics that are guaranteed to backfire.

Most consequential, two young
pro-independence campaigners who were elected to the Legislative
Council  Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Leung  chose to make a mockery
of their oath of office last September.

Such oaths are common for
legislators. In the United Kingdom, for example, you cannot assume
your role as an elected representative without taking one.

But Yau and Leung wanted to win
publicity for their cause. So they altered the words of the oath;
displayed a banner stating that Hong Kong is not China; and
referred to China using what many consider a slur.

Although the Hong Kong courts
surely could have dealt with the issue themselves  under the one
country, two systems framework, Hong Kong is assured an independent
court system, in addition to the right to elect its own legislature
 an enraged China intervened.

Restraint is not, after all, a
Leninist virtue.

In an extraordinary move, Chinas
National Peoples Congress Standing Committee stepped in to
clarify Article 104 of the Basic Law, declaring that all oaths
taken by office-holders must be solemn, accurate, complete, and
sincere.

Yau and Leung were barred from
taking their seats in the Legislative Council.

To most Hong Kong lawyers, the
display of political authority did not represent simply a
reinterpretation of old rules, but a move toward making new ones.

And, in fact, Hong Kongs
government is now launching legal challenges against four more
legislators  all relatively moderate pro-democracy activists 
arguing that their oaths of office were also invalid.

In short, Hong Kongs democracy may
now be more constrained than it was before.

It is depressing to see Hong Kong
once more bereft of inclusive leadership and roiled by political
grandstanding.

If this situation persists, Chinas
moves to assert more authority in Hong Kong could well become even
more brazen.

That is why it is so important for
the people of Hong Kong to ensure that their vision is not clouded
by extremism, and to stand up to protect the virtues that comprise
their unique identity.

Fortunately, there are many in Hong
Kong doing just that.

The legal profession, in
particular, continues to show brave leadership in upholding the rule
of law, a target of regular criticism by Communist Party officials
who either do not understand what it means or know all too well.

Similarly, civil-society
organizations such as the Project Citizens Foundation are committed
to educating the public on Hong Kongs rules and rights.

Thanks partly to their efforts, the
public tends to be knowledgeable and vigilant about encroachment on
Hong Kongs freedoms, such as the recent abduction of five book
publishers by mainland agents.

These are anxious times for Hong
Kong. But the problem is not so entrenched that it could not be
solved by a bold attempt to forge a consensus between the government
and those whom it is supposed to serve.

With enough political will  and
level heads  Hong Kong can return to a path leading toward a freer,
more open democracy.

19. A member of the Legislative Council
shall, as soon as possible after his appointment, or in the case of an
elected member after the commencement of his term of office as an elected
member, take the Oath of Allegiance or the Legislative Council Oath, which
shall be tendered by the Governor, or other member presiding. (Amended, 23
of 1985, s. 3)

Part I [ss. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20] Oath of
Allegiance

I swear that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her
Heirs and Successors, according to law. So help me God.

OR

PART IVA [ss. 16, 19.] Legislative
Council Oath

I, swear that I will uphold the law
of Hong Kong, and that I will conscientiously and truly serve the
people of Hong Kong as a member of the Legislative Council. So help me
God.

Well, at least the Legislative Councilors
of the colonial era had a choice between two forms of oath. This means that
they don't have to swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. If this is
the case, why can't Hong Kong today have two forms of oath as well?

The response of our Party to media
inquiries about the speech of former governor Chris Patten about Hong Kong
independence is as follows.

1. Chris Patten said that "we should
return to discuss the issues of governance and democracy instead of Hong
Kong independence." The Hong Kong National Party reiterates that if the
people of Hong Kong do not have sovereignty, then there cannot be any
genuine democracy, and governance will be completely controlled by the
Chinese government. The pursuit of independence is the realization of the
pursuit of democracy, freedom and human rights. No civilized nation can
allow the Fascist tumor of the Communist Party to continue to grow.

2. Youngspiration had never advocated
Hong Kong independence, but Patten used "student antics" to describe the
actions so of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, linking them with all
the supporters of Hong Kong independence, including the Hong Kong localist
movements or the entire independence movement. The Hong Kong National
Party regrets this biased and incomplete position.

3. Patten has been away from Hong Kong
for some years already. Occasionally he makes quick trips or attend public
events. But everything about democracy and livelihood has deteriorated in
Hong Kong society during these 19 years. In addition, Patten spoke "the
loss of the moral high ground achieved in 2014." The Hong Kong National
Party believes that even if the people of Hong Kong occupy the moral high
ground, they cannot dislodge the objective fact of Chinese colonization.
Patten is ignoring how the people of Hong Kong are being oppressed under
colonialism.

4. The role of China today is like
that of Nazi Germany. The people of Hong Kong have moral reasons to break
away from authoritarianism. Anti-colonialism is the consensus of all
civilized societies in the 21st century. The Hong Kong National Party
respects the fact that Patten defended Hong Kong democracy against the
Chinese government. If Patten cares about the development of democracy in
Hong Kong, he should tell the international community about the
colonialism practiced by China in Hong Kong. He should not repeat the
historical policy of appeasement.

- Chris Patten has been away from Hong
Kong for such a long time that he now knows absolutely nothing about the
situation in Hong Kong. He should have cited the Joint Sino-British
Declaration to criticize China. Instead, he blamed the resisters. He
should scram back to England!

- The way that I read the subliminal
message beneath Chris Patten's speech is that Hong Kong is ungovernable
under China, so the most practical solution is for China to return Hong
Kong to the United Kingdom in order to rebuild an independent Hong Kong
Nation.

- I completely agree. It doesn't
matter what Patten actually said. I didn't listen and I don't care
either. I only know that this has to be the conclusion.

- This is the first time that I was
disappointed in Chris Patten. He is now on the enemies' list for me.

- Chris Patten is a one-thousand year
sinner against the cause of Hong Kong independence.

- Since Chris Patten was opposed to
Brexit, it is not surprising that he does not like Hong Kong
independence.

- Chris Patten is an ugly fat bumbling
slob who is losing his hair. He should vanish from sight forever.

- Since Chris Patten was opposed to
Scottish independence, it is not surprising that he does not like
independence.

- Chris Patten is a product that is
past its expiry date. He spouts freedom, democracy and human rights all
the time, but all he wants is to connive some favors from the Commies.
By attacking the two pro-democracy legislators, Patten has shown that he
is a fifty-cent ganger.

- Chris Patten's speech has created
plenty of glass shards on the floor as so many fragile glass hearts have
been broken. At all the demonstrations, there are always people who show up
with the Union Jack on behalf of Hong Kong independence, because they saw
independence being achieved in two steps: (1) China hands sovereignty back
to the United Kingdom; (2) the United Kingdom will determine how to
implement democracy in Hong Kong, either as an independent nation or as part
of the United Kingdom.
But how Chris Patten has broken their hearts.

- Hong Kong independence is impossible, but
Cantonese independence is certainly feasible. The Grand Cantonese Nation
(including Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong, Guangxi) is unified by a common
language (Cantonese) and they form a huge self-sufficient economic bloc of
more than 100 million people with complete infrastructure in place already.
The Grand Cantonese Nation can formed a South China Economic Co-Prosperity
Sphere with Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines without
having to include those backward-thinking northern Chinese.

- What Grand Cantonese Nation? Thanks to
Deng Xiao-ping, these uneducated and unskilled natives were able to
prosper from the rent collected from their lands.

- Chris Patten brilliantly touched on
the central issue: "Hong Kong independence is diluting the democratic
forces." This is exactly what the Communist plot is about -- using the
independence talk to stop democracy in Hong Kong. And the whole oath debacle
was directed and carried out by CY Leung.

- If CY Leung hadn't talk about Hong Kong
independence, it would never have happened. Now that CY Leung has done it,
we the people of Hong Kong have no choice but to forge ahead. There is no
room to reverse course anymore. We live free or we die!

- Oh, hell, Chris Patten is saying all this
today because he has to defend the interests of British businesses in Hong
Kong as well as China. The United Kingdom gets nothing from democracy in
Hong Kong.

- If Chris Patten was genuinely concerned
about the people of Hong Kong, he should get the British government to
change the status of all BNO passport holders to full British citizen
status with right of abode. But, of course, he won't do that.

- Three messages in Chris Patten speech:
(1) 2014 Occupy Central was moral high point; (2) Hong Kong independence is
hopeless; (3) No comment on CY Leung and his government.

Here is what it all adds up to: Chris
Patten is making this trip to Hong Kong in order to help the traditional
pan-democrats.

Firstly, these people nominally supported
2014 Occupy Central. Patten is here to remind people of their moral
superiority.

Secondly, they have been losing votes to
pro-independence/self-determination localists. Patten is here to slap down
the localists.

Thirdly Patten is here is to unify the
traditional pan-democrats. Now everyone of them have their pet issues
(such as minimum wage, maximum working hours, universal pension, public
housing, environmental protection, etc) but there is one issue that will
unite all of them: ABC (Anyone But CY Leung). That is why Patten timed his
visit to just before the formation of the Election Committee and the Chief
Executive election season.

- (1) is absurd. The British cops would
have removed any Occupy demonstrators if they threaten to occupy central
London for 79 days. For example, (YouTube)
London police violently suppressed students demonstrating against
tuition fee hikes. Who has moral superiority?

- The reason why the localist/independence
forces have been getting so much publicity is that the traditional
pan-democrats refuse to denounce them loudly and openly in the manner of
Chris Patten. Therefore, the Fat Man is here to show them how. But if a
reporter were to ask the traditional pan-democrats for comments on this
part of Patten's speech, they will continue to duck.

- (TVB)
Chris Patten said that a government must put the citizens in the core, and
the Joint Sino-British Declaration guarantees the freedoms, rights and
duties of the citizens.

Eh, a 'treaty' is not going to guarantee
anything. If treaties are binding, then we should still be enforcing the
terms of the Treaty of Nanking. It is the Constitution that guarantees your
freedoms, right and duties. In the case of Hong Kong, it is the Basic Law.

- (Apple
Daily) November 26, 2016. With respect to Chris Patten
characterizing Leung-Yau actions as "student antics" and insisting that Hong
Kong democracy must not be mixed up with independence, Leung Chung-hang said
that he respects Patten's persons position. Leung said that since the
implementation of Basic Law is less than perfect, then the United Kingdom as
the party which negotiated with China has the moral obligation to intervene.
"In 2016, the people of Hong Kong ran into many difficulties with the
implementation of the Joint Sino-British Declaration without any solution.
As one side of the contract, shouldn't the United Kingdom have the moral
duty to deal with this?"

- The slogans always say "Hong Kong
people should determine their futures themselves" and "Hong Kong issues
matters should be resolved by Hong Kong people." Great! But when the going
gets tough, the proponents of self-determination/independence run to
foreign countries for help. What gives?

- Leung Chung-hand said that about 20% of
the votes went to self-determination/independence candidates in the
September 2016 Legco elections. The problem right now is that their voices
in parliament -- namely, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching -- are being
silenced. Therefore Chris Patten must do something about this on account
of moral duty.

When you hear this, your immediate
question will be: Where did this 20% come from? After all, Leung
Chung-hang got 7% of the votes in New Territories East and Yau Wai-ching
got 6% of the votes in Kowloon West. Leung will tell you that the 20%
refers to the total votes for self-determination/independence candidates,
and he is going to enumerate how legislators such as Chu Hoi Dick, Lau
Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Cheung Chung-tai, Nathan Law, etc have also
expressed such opinions and taken such actions.

At this point, we know for certain that
Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching must be Chinese Communist moles. Not
only do they want to lose their two Legco seats, they also want to bring
the entire bloc down!

Yau Wai-ching writes letter to
President Tsai: Pay attention to the issue of sovereignty of New
Territories (in Hong Kong)
Liberty Times

To Ms. Tsai Ing-wen, President of
the Republic of China

The People's Republic of China
(the government of the Republic of China on mainland China) declared
its so-called "Interpretation" on November 7, 2016. Objectively, this
was the same was an "law amendment" which severely interferes with
Hong Kong self-rule. Without going through the scrutiny of the Hong
Kong legislative apparatus, the Chinese Communists have "amended" the
local Hong Kong ordinances. This clearly contravenes the Joint
Sino-British Declaration made by the People's Republic of China and
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

With respect to his violent
interference of the People's Republic of China in judicial
independence and self-rule in Hong Kong, I and my party have written
to the United Kingdom government. The Chinese Communists have broken
Hong Kong Basic Law Articles 22 and 158, which stipulates that they
can only interpret concerning affairs which are the responsibility of
the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship
between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region. This recent Interpretation by the People's
Republic of China has clearly violated that stipulations of the Basic
Law, broken the relevant articles in the Joint Sino-British
Declaration and possibly nullified the Joint Sino-British Declaration.
That Declaration was a bilateral treaty entered into by the United
Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, and therefore must follow
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At present both nations
are still signatories of the Convention. So if the People's Republic
of China were to reject what the United Kingdom has to say about what
happened in Hong Kong, they will have violated the terms of the Joint
Sino-British Declaration. Based up on Article 66 of the
Vienna Convention, the United Kingdom can seek arbitration at
the International Court of Justice on the validity of the Joint
Sino-British Declaration and consider reverting the position of Hong
Kong's sovereignty back to the status on June 30, 1997.

Under the Treaty of Nanking and
the Convention of Peking, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of
Boundary Street) were ceded by the Qing Nation to the United Kingdom
in perpetuity. The United Kingdom leased the New Territories from the
Qing Nation for 99 years. Therefore the Joint Sino-British Declaration
can only cover the issue of sovereignty for Hong Kong Island and
Kowloon but not for the New Territories. It is controversial for the
Joint Sino-British Declaration to lump the New Territories together
with Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. At this time, the People's Republic
of China has broken the Joint Sino-British Declaration, which is the
sole basis for the Chinese Communist to claim "ownership" of
sovereignty in Hong Kong. In addition, the lease for the New
Territories ended in 1997. Since then the People's Republic of China
has taken illegal possession of the New Territories for 19 years. I
hope that President Tsai will become seriously concerned about the
sovereignty of the New Territories.

On June 9, 1898, 56 years after
Hong Kong Island was ceded by the Qing Nation, the British government
and the Qing government in Beijing signed the Convention for the
Extension of Hong Kong Territories to lead the territory from the
north of Boundary Street to south of the Shenzhen River, along with
233 nearby islands for a period of 99 years until June 30, 1997. If
the Joint Sino-British Declaration is no longer valid, the Republic of
China still retains one of the three treaties concerning the
sovereignty of Hong Kong. The Republic of China should make an
official position about its view of the place of New Territories
within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China. For
example, what is the difference between the sovereignty of Hong Kong
Island/Kowloon and that of the New Territories? Will President Tsai
enter into negotiations with the British government as a result?

I recommend that President Tsai
examine this issue and state your position in order to clarify
confusions. I request that President Tsai provide me with updates on
this matter.

Yau Wai China
Representative of public opinion in Hong Kong as elected legally by
democratic election.
November 21, 2016.

Disqualified
pro-independence lawmaker Yau Wai-ching apologised for causing a
misunderstanding after a Taiwanese newspaper published her proposed
letter to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen to call her attention to
the recent political turmoil in Hong Kong.

The citys
constitutional affairs minister Raymond Tam Chi-yuen also weighed in
on the matter on Wednesday, saying that no foreign country, official
or authorities from other places should interfere with Hong Kongs
internal affairs.

Yau wrote on her
Facebook page on Tuesday that she had planned to write to Tsai over
the recent interpretation of the Basic Law initiated by Beijing, but
the letter published by Chinese-language daily Liberty Times
was just a draft that had already been rejected. It is understood that
it had been turned down by Yaus party, Youngspiration.

The drama over
the letter fuels Hong Kongs ongoing oath-taking controversy, which
will see Yau and fellow localist Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang in
court on Thursday to appeal against the ruling that barred them from
the Legislative Council. The High Court ruled earlier this month that
the duo should be disqualified as they had declined to take their
oaths by pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong nation and insulting
the country at their swearing-in ceremony on October 12.

Yau argued in
the draft letter that the sovereignty of the New Territories did not
belong to the mainland according to the 1984 Sino-British Joint
Declaration, which should deal only with the sovereignty of Hong Kong
Island and Kowloon.

That was because
the New Territories became part of the British colony of Hong Kong
only after London and the Qing empire signed a lease in 1898, which
was supposed to expire in 1997. Since the Qing empire was overthrown
in 1911, and the lease  together with two treaties concerning the
cession of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon  are now kept by Taiwan
authorities, Taipei should explain its stance on the constitutional
status of the New Territories, Yau urged.

She said the New
Territories had been stolen by China for 19 years after it resumed
sovereignty over the city in 1997. Yau also argued that Tsai, who is
the leader of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party,
should show concern over the sovereignty of the New Territories and
declare her position on the issue because there were questions over
the validity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration after Chinas top
legislative body issued its interpretation of the Basic Law on
November 7.

The ruling,
which stated that lawmakers who refused to take their oaths
sincerely would be disqualified, was described by Yau as an obvious
breach of articles in the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.

In Articles 1
and 2 of the Declaration, Beijing declared that to recover the Hong
Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New
Territories, hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong) is the common
aspiration of the entire Chinese people, and London declared that it
would restore Hong Kong to China on July 1, 1997. Basic Law Article
1 states that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the Peoples
Republic of China.

On Tuesday
night, Yau said on her Facebook page that the version of the letter
published by the newspaper was just one of the drafts of a letter for
Tsai on the recent interpretation of the Basic Law and the collapse
of one country, two systems, and that the draft had been rejected.
She did not explain how it then appeared in the newspaper.

I apologise if
I have created [any] misunderstanding for the Liberty Times
and the public. I reiterate that I attach great importance to my
relationship with Taiwan and would not act recklessly.

Asked about the
letter, a spokesman for Taiwans presidential office said: Hong Kong
people wanted reform and a choice on the life and system they want.
The Chinese government should respond positively and conduct dialogues
with patience.

Yau said last
week she had written to London to complain about Beijings meddling
in the former British colonys affairs.

Beijing-owned
Global Times reported on Wednesday that Taiwans
presidential office said Yaus letter would be handled by Taipeis
Mainland Affairs Council. The tabloid also quoted Shenzhen
Universitys Hong Kong affairs expert Zhang Dinghuai as saying: Yau
was simply trying to get Taiwan independence forces to back Hong Kong
independence and to get media attention. She will not succeed because
Hong Kong people will not support such a naïve and laughable cause.

The Treaty of Nanking or Nanjing
was a peace treaty which ended the First Opium War (183942) between
the United Kingdom and the Qing dynasty of China on 29 August 1842.
The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony,
ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity", to provide British
traders with a harbor where they could unload their goods (the most
important of which was opium). A copy of the treaty is kept by the
British government while another copy is kept at the National Palace
Museum in Taipei.

The Convention of Peking is an agreement comprising three
distinct treaties concluded between the Qing Nation and the United
Kingdom, France, and Russia in 1860. Article 6 of the Convention
between China and the United Kingdom stipulated that China was to cede
the part of Kowloon Peninsula south of present-day Boundary Street,
Kowloon, and Hong Kong (including Stonecutters Island) in perpetuity
to Britain. The original copy of the Convention is now kept in the
National Palace Museum in Taipei.

The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories was
an unequal treaty signed between Qing China and the United Kingdom in
1898. Under the convention, the territories north of what is now
Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding
islands, later known as the "New Territories", were leased to the
United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free, expiring on 30 June 1997, and
became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong. The original copy of the
Convention is now kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

These are not treaties in the sense
of the normal bilateral agreements between nations. These are
Unequal Treaties:

Historian Immanuel Hsu explained
that the Chinese viewed the treaties they signed with Western powers
as unequal "because they were not negotiated by nations treating
each other as equals but were imposed on China after a war, and
because they encroached upon China's sovereign rights ... which
reduced her to semicolonial status". In many cases, China was
effectively forced to pay large amounts of reparations, open up
ports for trade, cede or lease territories (such as Outer Manchuria
and Outer Northwest China to Russian Empire, Hong Kong to Great
Britain and Macau to Portugal), and make various other concessions
of sovereignty to foreign "spheres of influence", following military
defeats.

After World War I, patriotic
consciousness in China focused on the treaties, which now became
widely known as "unequal treaties". The Nationalist Party and the
Communist Party competed to convince the public that their approach
would be more effective. Germany was forced to terminate its rights,
the Soviet Union ostentatiously surrendered them, and the United
States organized the Washington Conference to negotiate them. After
Chiang Kai-shek declared a new national government in 1927, the
western powers quickly offered diplomatic recognition. The new
government declared to the Great Powers that China had been
exploited for decades under unequal treaties, and that the time for
such treaties was over, demanding they renegotiate all of them on
equal terms. Most of China's unequal treaties were abrogated during
the Second Sino-Japanese War. The United States Congress ended
American extraterritoriality in December 1943. A significant example
of unequal treaties with China did outlast World War II: unequal
treaties regarding Hong Kong remained in place until Hong Kong's
1997 handover.

This explains why the United Kingdom
had no negotiating power in the 1980's over the handover of Hong Kong
back to the People's Republic of China. All civilized nations had
surrendered decades ago any gains from the unequal treaties with the
Qing dynasty. So how was the United Kingdom going to cling on to the
spoils from the Opium Wars? That would be morally execrable!

- Is the Joint Sino-British
Declaration a treaty between the United Kingdom and the People's
Republic of China? Will the United Nations intercede to insure that
the Joint Declaration has been implemented?

Article 102 of the
Charter of the United Nations provides that "[e]very treaty
and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the
United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as
soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by
it". The Joint Declaration was registered with the United Nations in
order to fulfil the obligation under Article 102 of the Charter.
According to the Treaty Handbook prepared by the Office of Legal
Affairs of the Secretariat of the United Nations, where an
instrument is registered under Article 102 of the Charter, this does
not imply a judgement by the United Nations on the nature of the
registered instrument, the status of a party, or any similar
questions. As such, it certainly does not imply that the United
Nations can "monitor" the implementation of a particular instrument
on the basis of its registration by the relevant State.

Moreover, Hong Kong affairs are, in
the words of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the
United Nations at the press briefing on 30 September this year, a
"domestic matter". Article 2(7) of the Charter provides that
"nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to
submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter".

Under the principle of sovereign
equality of States as stipulated in Article 2(1) of the Charter, no
State shall interfere in the internal affairs of another. The
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations in Resolution 2625 of the General
Assembly (1970) stipulates that "[n]o State or group of States has
the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason,
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State",
and "[e]very State has an inalienable right to choose its political,
economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any
form by another State". The Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States in
Resolution 36/103 of the General Assembly (1981) also provides for
"[t]he sovereign and inalienable right of a State freely to
determine its own political, economic, cultural and social systems,
in accordance with the will of its people, without outside
intervention, interference, subversion, coercion or threat in any
form whatsoever". Non-interference in each other's internal affairs
is a basic norm of international relations and a fundamental
principle of international law.

- And Article 102(2) of the
Charter of the United Nations says: "No party to any such treaty
or international agreement which has not been registered in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may
invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United
Nations." That means the United Nations, the European Union, the
Republic of China, Tsai Ing-wen, Yau Wai-ching and whoever else
cannot bring the subject up before the United Nations.

- At her Hong Kong Legislative
Council oath of office, Yau Wai-ching produced a "Hong Kong Is Not
China" banner.

But in her letter to Republic of
China President Tsai Ing-wen, she seems to agree that China indeed has
sovereignty over Hong Kong. Under the Treaty of Nanking and the
Convention of Peking, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded in
perpetuity to the United Kingdom. In theory, the United Kingdom has
permanent ownership and they can do whatever they want. But in 1997, the
United Kingdom chose to hand sovereignty of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon to the People's Republic of China.

Under the Convention for the
Extension of Hong Kong Territories, New Territories was leased (but
not ceded) by the Qing Dynasty to the United Kingdom for 99 years
(1898-1997). At the end of the lease term, the United Kingdom returned
New Territories back to the People's Republic of China.

What Yau Wai-ching wants Tsai Ing-wen
to
do is to produce the original copy of the Convention for the Extension
of Hong Kong Territories from the National Palace Museum in Taipei and
claim to be the true owner of New Territories!

- In the 1980's the United Kingdom
realized that the status of Hong Kong cannot continue indefinitely.
The lease for New Territories was due to terminate. So they entered
negotiations. But with whom?

On any matter related to "China",
United Nations Resolution 2758 says that the People's Republic of
China is the only legitimate representative of China to the United
Nations. Who else could the United Kingdom negotiate with?

Owning the original copy of the
Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories does not make
you the owner if you are not the recognized state entity. The owner
is the lawful representatives of China.

- Yau Wai-ching knows that success
cannot be achieved by a handful of valiant pro-independence warriors.
So she has to get powerful nations to do this. But in realpolitik,
the question is: What is in it for me?

Let us suppose that the United
Kingdom determines that the People's Republic of China has violated
the terms of the 'treaty' known as the Joint Sino-British Declaration
and went to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling that
the status of Hong Kong be returned to that on June 30, 1997: to wit,
a British colony.

Guess what? They will find the place
completely ungovernable. They will own all the unsolvable problems
with none of the previous benefits. There will be demonstrations every
day, ranging from pro-independence Youngspiration demonstrations led
by the selfsame Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to pro-unification
demonstrations led by Anna Chan and Voice of Loving Hong Kong to
pro-agriculture/anti-development demonstrations led by Chu Hoi Dick to
pro-unlicensed vendors demonstrations led by Lau Siu-lai to
pro-"genuine universal suffrage" demonstrations led by the Civic Human
Rights Front. What will they do? Send out the police and apply tear
gas to disperse the crowds?

So it will be a quick exit for the
born-again colonialists in the form of "democratic elections" with
"genuine universal suffrage with one-person-one-vote and civil
nomination." Whoever wins the election to form the next government
will find Hong Kong to be completely ungovernable. They will own all
the unsolvable problems, and they will want the United Kingdom to deal with
the mess that was left behind.

So why would the United Kingdom be
interested?

Let us suppose that the Republic of
China (Taiwan) determines that they are the true owners of New
Territories as suggested by Yau Wai-ching. So they produce the
original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong
Territories and file for ownership at the
International Court of Justice. Guess what? Only States
(members of the United Nations) may be parties to contentious cases,
and the Republic of China is not a member of the United Nations.
Furthermore the Court is competent to entertain a dispute in this
situation only if "the States have entered into a special agreement to
submit the dispute to the Court." Why would either the United Kingdom
or the People's Republic of China agree?

The problem with Taiwan is not even
about any international issues. It is about domestic politics,
especially since the honeymoon period is over for President Tsai. Hey,
if Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party want to count on
the support of pro-independence elements in Taiwan, then joining the
fray with the standing as the Republic of China over the status of
Hong Kong is out of the question. Their slogan is "Taiwan is not
China". They may even give a friendly shout of "Hong Kong is not
China" in order to irk China. But they won't stick their necks out for
Hong Kong because "Hong Kong is not Taiwan" either.

- Actually, it is an intriguing
"What If" exercise if we go through with the Republic of China
getting the International Court of Justice to grant sovereignty for
New Territories. When that happens, New Territories belongs to the
Republic of China. The border with Shenzhen stays as is. But
Boundary Street becomes the border once more as fences are set up
between Kowloon and New Territories.
The 3.6 million people who live in the New Territories become
Republic of China citizens. Everybody who lives on the one side of
the border will need a visa in order to travel to the other side.

- For example, a Hong Kong
Islander will need a visa to attend the Jockey Club races in Sha
Tin. You cannot walk across the street. You have to go through
security screening, immigration control and customs inspection
every time.

The Hong Kong International
Airport is located in the New Territories, which means that the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will no longer have its
own airport.

The High Speed Rail from China
will stop in Shenzhen, the passengers will exit China and clear
ROC customs to enter New Territories, they will re-embark the
train, they will disembark at Boundary Street, they will exit ROC
and clear Hong Kong customs, they will re-embark the train which
will deposit them at the Kowloon Terminal.

The Republic of China government
will now have to deal with the 'country squires' (=indigenous
inhabitants) and their inherited land rights as guaranteed by
Basic Law Article 40. Undoubtedly they will think initially that
they can just take those rights away, but they get their sorry
asses handed back to them.

The residents of New Territories
are now ROC citizens and therefore must perform compulsory
military service under the Military Services Act as well as
Article 20 of the ROC Constitution ("The people shall have the
duty of performing military service in accordance with law").

Will Hong Kong schools continue
to be taught in Cantonese? Or do they have to be taught in
Mandarin in order to maintain a single standard for the Republic
of China? After screaming all these years against education that
includes putonghua and national history, what will the
Localists now say?

New Territories is basically a
large bedroom community. Four of the pillars of the Hong Kong economy --
finance, tourism, retail and service -- are located in
Hong Kong Island/Kowloon. New Territories has the Hong Kong
International Airport and Disneyland in Lamma Island and the
container port facilities in Kwai Chung. But there are similar or
better facilities in Shenzhen already. This means ROC citizens in New
Territories will have to apply for work permits in order to keep
their jobs in Hong Kong Island/Kowloon. Many more ROC citizens in
Taiwan will want to move to the New Territories because of the
relatively higher wages.

- Of course, the whole idea is
that Taiwan should pay the price to fight for the separation of
New Territories from the Republic of China. After that happens,
the people of Hong Kong will fight to separate from Taiwan to form
the Hong Kong Nation. There is no intention of ever becoming part
of Taiwan.

- About those 'country squires',
they are not going to like being handed over without ensuring that
their rights are protected.

Before the handover of New
Territories to Great Britain in early April of 1899, Captain
Superintendent of Police, Francis Henry May and some policemen
erected a flagstaff and temporary headquarters at Tai Po and
posted the Governor's proclamation of the takeover date. Fearing
for their traditional land rights, in the
Six-Day War of 1899, a number of clans attempted to resist
the British, mobilising clan militias that had been organised and
armed to protect against longshore raids by pirates. The militia
men attempted a frontal attack against the temporary police
station in Tai Po that was main British base but were beaten back
by superior force of arms. An attempt by the clansmen at guerilla
warfare was put down by the British near Lam Tsuen with over 500
men Chinese killed, and collapsed when British artillery was
brought to bear on the walled villages of the clansmen. Most
prominent of the villages in the resistance Kat Hing Wai, of the
Tang clan, was symbolically disarmed, by having its main gates
dismounted and removed. However, in order to prevent future
resistance, the British made concessions to the indigenous
inhabitants with regards to land use, land inheritance and
marriage laws; the majority of which remained in place into the
1960s when polygyny was outlawed. Some of the concessions with
regard to land use and inheritance remain in place in Hong Kong to
this day and is a source of friction between indigenous
inhabitants and other Hong Kong residents.

- Tsai Ing-wen's Democratic
Progressive Party responded to the unsent letter at 23:20 that
night.

In essence, the DPP says: "It is
bad to have family squabbles, so your family should learn to get
along and live long and prosperous lives. In any case, your family
affairs are none of my business."

- Someone who wants Hong Kong
independence/self-determination is actively soliciting the Republic of
China to claim sovereignty over Hong Kong?

- The Republic of China does not
even have sovereignty over Taiwan. How can they make claims for the
New Territories in Hong Kong?

- Yau Wai-ching is setting up Tsai
Ing-wen to fail. If the Taiwan government proceeds to claim
sovereignty over New Territories, then the Democratic Progressive
Party is acting as a pro-Unification/One China party just like the
KMT. If the Taiwan government proceeds to declare that Taiwan is
Taiwan and they have nothing to do with China (including Hong Kong),
then this is a declaration of Taiwan independence. So the only
option for Tsai is the current one: The matter has been handed over
to the Mainland Affairs Council to study. Since Yau has disavowed
the letter, this matter no longer needs to be addressed.

- Plausible deniability:

\

Yau Wai-ching's Facebook:

My response to the report in
Liberty Times about my letter to President Tsai Ing-wen:
1. I did consider sending a letter to President Tsai in the hope that
she can pay attention to the recent Interpretation affair in Hong Kong
and the collapse of One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong.
2. At first, I wanted to bring out the issue of the future of Hong
Kong in 2047 in order give the people of Hong Kong more ideas
3. The version published in Liberty Times was one of the draft
versions, but it has been rejected.
4. I realized that there was a misunderstanding this afternoon and I
have called to put a stop to it.
5. I apologize if this caused any misunderstanding at Liberty Times
and with the mass of citizens.
6. I re-emphasize that I place great importance in the relationship
with Taiwan and I will not act rashly.

- Yau Wai-ching's 'advisor' Lam Ho-ki
was asked: "One of your suggestions?" about the letter. He
responded: "None of my business." However, Lam praised Yau
as being a brilliant thinker who is way ahead of other Hongkongers.
BWAHHHHHHH!

- It is standard operation
procedure for Youngspiration to do something and disavow it
afterwards as if it had never happened. But this time they blew
Liberty Times up as collateral damage.

- Dear Ms. Yau, what the fuck are
you up to? I don't mind if you don't have a timetable for Hong Kong
independence. I don't mind if you don't have a roadmap for Hong Kong
independence. I don't mind if you leave a mess behind you for us to
clean up. But why the fuck do you want to mess with Taiwan? If Tsai Ing-wen doesn't respond, Hong Kong would look fucking useless. If
Tsai Ing-wen does respond, why can she really do for Hong Kong
independence? For God's sake, don't make this a big story in Liberty
Times in order that the people of Taiwan can say, "What the fuck
are
the problems of the people of Hong Kong to us?" We end up fucking
worse than ever. #please_fucking_stop.

- Yau Wai-ching apologized to
Liberty Times. If Liberty Times had obtained and published the
letter without authorization, Yau Wai-ching should be suing them. So
if she apologizes, it means that she (or someone in her circle) gave
the 'draft' letter to Liberty Times for publication. Originally Yau Wai-ching was supposed
to discuss this letter at 5pm via Facebook live coverage, but she
canceled that event and issued the disavowal at 8pm. So there must
have been internal dissension at Youngspiration to cause the letter
be rescinded.

- What was the dissension about?
The published letter focused on the sovereignty of the Republic of
China over New Territories. The disavowal said that the original
intention was to deal with the issue of the future of Hong Kong in
2047. This means that the opposing opinion within Youngspiration
is that Republic of China sovereignty is dead-on-arrival.

- Yau Wai-ching is advocating
separatism. If she wanted Hong Kong to be free of China before,
now she wants New Territories to be free of Hong Kong. Of course,
the Localists will react negatively to this destruction of
territorial integrity of the Hong Kong Nation by handing half the
population to an alien putonghua/minnan/hakka-speaking
outside authority.

- The most appealing idea behind
Hong Kong independence is self-determination -- the people of Hong
Kong should be their own boss and decide what they want for
themselves. Therefore, this letter is a cardinal sin, because the
unelected Yau Wai-ching wants to cut a private deal with the
President of the Republic of China to determine the future of the
3.6 million New Territories residents, without consulting them or
holding a referendum.

- If you hold a referendum on the
future of New Territories, what are the choices?

1. New Territories is part of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

2(a). New Territories is part of
the People's Republic of China under One Country One System

2(b). New Territories is part of
the People's Republic of China under One Country Two Systems

3(a). New Territories is part of
the Republic of China (Taiwan) under One Country One System

3(b) New Territories is part of the
Republic of China (Taiwan) under One Country Two Systems

My guess is that the distribution
of votes among New Territories citizens will be:

1. 2%
2(a). 5%
2(b). 90%
3(a). 0%
3(b). 3%.

- Who gets to vote to decide the
future of New Territories? Those who reside in the New Territories
obviously should be able to determine their own future. But what
about those who live in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon? They have
families, properties, businesses and other ties in New Territories,
and they should be considered stakeholders. But, alas, this cannot
be. Because if you let the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon residents
votes, it means that some day you will have to let the 1.4 billion
people in mainland Chinese vote on the future of Hong Kong. We
cannot allow that, so we must sacrifice the interests of the Hong
Kong Island and Kowloon residents at this time. Sorry, but that's
life.

- Why did the United Kingdom have
to agree to hand Hong Kong back over to the People's Repubilc of
China? Couldn't they just hand the leased New Territories back while
keeping the perpetually ceded Hong Kong Island and Kowloon?

For one thing, Hong Kong's shipping
ports (airports and port facilities), reservoirs and other vital
installations are located in New Territories. More importantly, it
would have been impossible to accommodate those New Territories
residents moving to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon before the handover
takes effect.

- (Bastille
Post) When it came to "6.
I re-emphasize that I place great importance in the relationship
with Taiwan and I will not act rashly", the immediate reaction
is that Tsai Ing-wen is indeed the big boss behind the Localist
movement in Hong Kong! This was a pledge of fealty!

- Wan Chin: When the young people
of Hong Kong travel to Taiwan and get asked about what Yau Wai-ching
did to Liberty Times, they will be extremely embarrassed. As for
myself, I can only say: "The people of Hong Kong really let the
people of Taiwan down."

- The likely
response from Yau Wai-ching:

- Fuck! How the fuck could Liberty
Times print a draft letter unless someone in Yau's circle sent them
a copy!? Obviously, they panicked after they saw the adverse
reaction and decided to control the damage by disavowal.

Last week, Youngspiration
spokesperson Kenny Wong Chun-kit allegedly leaked Youngspirations
plan to invite Taiwanese separatist group New Power Party (時代力量)
to Hong Kong to Local Press, a localist news outlet in Hong Kong.
After Local Press published the interview, Wong denied the plan
and accused Local Press of releasing false information. Wongs
reaction was frowned upon by Local Presss readership, whereas
disappointment soon escalated to online outrage, forcing Wong to
apologise and resign as Youngspirations spokesperson.

- In 2016, we saw the
destructiveness of moles. Thus, Youngspiration managed to destroy
the entire Localist movement in just a matter of months. During the
Legislative Council elections, they worked with Operation ThunderGo
to splinter the localists movement into Youngspiration/Hong Kong
Indigenous versus Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong
Kong Resurgence Order. During the oath of office, they managed to
offend the entire Chinese population in the world, weakened
rule-of-law, diminished the stature of the Legislative Council and gave up
their two Legco seats. Are they going to disappear into the sunset
after accomplishing their mission? No, they want to destroy
relationships among the worldwide independence movements as well!

- Youngspiration
cannot be so naive to think that they have a breakthrough here. But media
exposure is decreasing after losing the two Legco seats, so they need some
gimmicks. If President Tsai acted on their suggestion and face a powerful
response from China (such as the cessation of all trade and travel), they
will have achieved immortal fame.

- If we give them
the $5,000,000 that they want, will they really promise to go away?
Please. Pretty please.

It all
began two years ago. Conspirators plotted a script so ingenious
it was the stuff of Hollywood. Double agents, deceit, you name
it, the plot had it. Every move was so masterful that no one
suspected anything until it was too late.

As
co-conspirator, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was tasked with
putting the plot into play. He used his January 2015 policy
speech to attack an obscure student magazine for advocating
independence. His aim was not to stifle the voice of
independence but to deviously stoke it so he could crack down
hard to prove himself as a strong leader Beijing should trust
for another term.

As chief
conspirator, Beijing bankrolled Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang
and Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration who posed as champions of
independence to win Legislative Council seats. They played their
parts perfectly by using their oath-taking to insult China,
giving Beijing an excuse to smack the independence movement. It
did that with a Machiavellian touch by interpreting the Basic
Law in a way that not only excludes independence supporters from
the Legislative Council, but also achieves its ulterior aim to
dilute one country, two systems and Hong Kongs judicial
autonomy.

Who knows?
The Youngspiration pair may indeed be gifted actors paid to
provide Beijing with a pretext to crack down. I find it
far-fetched because the plot is full of holes. But youd be
surprised how many Hongkongers believe this tale of double
agents.

Opposition
leaders claim Leung Chun-ying fomented, then acted tough against
the independence movement to impress Beijing. Surely, if they
can see through such a scheme, so can Beijing. And why would
Leung need such an elaborate scheme to impress Beijing if he was
in on the plot?

Do you
really think Beijing needs to go to such lengths to tighten its
grip on Hong Kong? We should know by now that if Beijing wanted
to clench its fist, it would without hiring double agents to
provide a pretext. It shoved a restrictive political reform
framework down our throats, interpreted the Basic Law several
times, and stood up to the Occupy protest without having to
create excuses.

If Leung
and Yau are really props, would Beijing give them such free
rein? Their youth alone suggests they cant be trained spies.
That would make them risky double agents who could be easily
pressured to spill the beans. Is Beijing really that stupid?

- When
everything that you touch turns into dust or rust, you either have
very bad luck or else you are a saboteur or else you are truly
incompetent. Take your pick.

U.S. Senators Tom Cotton
(R-Arkansas), a Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC)
Commissioner, and Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Co-Chair of the CECC, today
introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, legislation
that would renew the United States' historical commitment to freedom
and democracy in Hong Kong at a time when its autonomy is increasingly
under assault. The legislation also establishes punitive measures
against government officials in Hong Kong or mainland China who are
responsible for suppressing basic freedoms in Hong Kong, especially in
connection with the abduction of certain booksellers.

"The United States must lead the
world in ensuring that the Chinese government ceases any repressive
acts in Hong Kong and abides by its three-decade-old international
commitment to respect the autonomy of Hong Kong," said
Cotton. "This bill would empower the president to hold
Beijing accountable and send a strong message to Chinese officials
that attempts to undermine liberty in Hong Kong and walk away from
their promises will not be without consequences. Hong Kong's unique
identity and traditions of liberty, rule of law, and a market-based
economy can be a model for a China that is a more productive player on
the international stage. U.S. foreign policy should encourage those
traditions, and strongly warn Beijing against any diminishment of
those values."

"When the British handed over Hong
Kong to the Chinese in 1997, Beijing promised Hong Kong would enjoy a
high degree of autonomy guaranteed under Basic Law," said
Rubio. "However, in recent years, Beijing has consistently
undermined the one country, two systems' principle and infringed on
the democratic freedoms the residents of Hong Kong are supposed to be
guaranteed. This was on stark display over the last year with the
abduction of the Hong Kong booksellers, the required loyalty oaths in
the lead-up to the September LegCo elections, and last week with
Beijing's unprecedented intervention in Hong Kong's legal system to
block two democratically elected politicians from assuming office.
China's assault on democratic institutions and human rights is of
central importance to the people of Hong Kong and to its status as a
free market, economic powerhouse and hub for international trade and
investment.

"The importance of this legislation was again impressed upon me today
after meeting with pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who became the
face of the Umbrella Movement for many in late 2014," added
Rubio. "Joshua is an impressive and thoughtful young man who,
along with his fellow activists, represents the future of Hong Kong -
a future that must not go the way of Beijing's failed authoritarianism
and one-party rule. It is critical in the days ahead that the
democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong be a vital U.S.
interest and foreign policy priority. The Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act reaffirms America's support of the people of Hong Kong
as they seek to oppose Beijing's efforts to erode democratic
institutions."

The
Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would:

Reaffirm the principles set forth
in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, including support
for democratization, human rights, and the importance of Hong Kong
remaining sufficiently autonomous from China to justify different
treatment under U.S. law.

Reinstate the requirement for the
Secretary of State to issue a report on conditions in Hong Kong of
interest to the United States, including developments related to
democratic institutions in Hong Kong, no later than 90 days after
enactment and every year through 2023.

Require the Secretary of State to
certify that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous before enacting
any new laws or agreements affording Hong Kong different treatment
from the People's Republic of China.

Require the President to identify
persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention, or
forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong
Kong, and other actions suppressing basic freedoms, and to freeze
their U.S.-based assets and deny them entry into the U.S.

Make clear that visa applicants
who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the
basis of the applicant's arrest, detention or other adverse
government action taken as a result of their participation in the
nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral
process.

On one hand, Joshua Wong is said to
be skinny. On the other hand,
Marco Rubio is said to be 5'10" tall when enhanced his
three-inch-heeled boots.

Is there any honesty left in
politics?

- When Joshua Wong put on his suit,
Hong Kong Internet users could only think of the classical saying
沐猴而冠 (MDBG.net:
a monkey wearing a hat/worthless person in imposing attire). But was
it politically correct to say something like that? Maybe not in the
United States, but it is apparently quite alright in Hong Kong where
we have genuine freedom of speech.

(Kinliu)
In the town of Clay in West Virginia, a development company manager
named Pamela Ramsey Taylor posted on Facebook: "It will be
refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the
White House. I'm tired of seeing an ape in heels." Shortly
afterwards, Clay mayor Beverly Whaling pressed praise and said:
"Just made my day." The ape in heels refers to First Lady Michelle
Obama. More than 150,000 signed to demand these two individuals to
resign. Within two weeks, these two individuals resigned and
apologized. In the process, there were no petitions, judicial
reviews or interpretations of the Constitution. The two individuals
did not blame their West Virginian accents. After they resigned,
they said: "I am genuine sorry for any unhappiness that I may have
caused." But under Hong Kong logic, this was "oppressing freedom of
speech"! In the United States, 150,000 signatures were enough to
bring two people down. In Hong Kong, 600,000 signatures could not
get Leung Chung-hand and Yau-ching to resign or even apologize.
Instead we need a judicial review backed by an Interpretation of the
Basic Law to oust these two people Thus American democracy is even
more backwards than ours here in Hong Kong.

- Let's look at the highlights of the
Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in the Cotton press release.

- "Reaffirm the principles set forth
in the
United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, including support
for democratization, human rights, and the importance of Hong Kong
remaining sufficiently autonomous from China to justify different
treatment under U.S. law."

- This is just a rehash. Nothing new
here.

- "Reinstate the requirement for the
Secretary of State to issue a report on conditions in Hong Kong of
interest to the United States, including developments related to
democratic institutions in Hong Kong, no later than 90 days after
enactment and every year through 2023."

- In
United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, the Secretary
of State was required to issue reports on March 31, 1993, March 31,
1995, March 31, 1997, March 31, 1998, March 31, 1999, and March 31,
2000. Paperwork is meaningless unless something in there is
actionable. As amended, the Secretary of State submitted reports in
1993, annually from 1995 to 2007 and in 2015.

- "Require the Secretary of State to
certify that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous before enacting any
new laws or agreements affording Hong Kong different treatment from
the People's Republic of China."

- Everybody has the right to choose
whom they associate or deal with.

- The problem is about the
politician's favorite tool:
Triangularization. On one side, there is God's favorite son,
the United States of America. On the other side, there is Satan, the
People's Republic of China. Which side is Hong Kong closer to? If the
United States declare that Hong Kong is in Satan's hands and thus
refuse to grant certain favors, who do you think the people of Hong
Kong will blame? The Americans, of course. Who would be the happiest
to see this outcome? The Chinese Communists, of course.

The winning formula for the United
States is to drown Hong Kong with love and affection, while denying
all the goodies to the Chinese Communists in order to show "Hong Kong
is not China"!

- "Require the President to identify
persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention, or
forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong
Kong, and other actions suppressing basic freedoms, and to freeze
their U.S.-based assets and deny them entry into the U.S."

- The Hong Kong and international
paparazzi haven't been able to even name the persons responsible for
the surveillance, abduction, detention or forced confessions of
certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong. Even the kidnap
victims don't seem to know. So good luck to the State Department! This
clause does not say what happens if the President can't identify the
persons.

- The buck stops at Xi Jinping's
desk. So is the POTUS (President of the United States) not allowed to
invite him to the United States for a summit meeting?

- And if the President determines
that C.Y. Leung is one of those persons who kidnapped the booksellers,
what is the substantive impact of freezing his U.S.-based assets
(note: he has none; even if he has some assets now, they will have
been moved by the time that this Act passes)?

- And if the President determines
that Guo Shengkun (Minister of Public Security) is one of those
persons who kidnapped the booksellers, what is the substantive impact
of banning him from entering the United States (note: as Minister of
Public Security in the People's Republic of China, he has no interest
of visiting the United States now and forever).

- "Make clear that visa applicants
who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the
basis of the applicant's arrest, detention or other adverse government
action taken as a result of their participation in the nonviolent
protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

The immigration laws of the
United States, in order to protect the health, welfare and
security of the United States, prohibit the issuance of a visa
to certain applicants. Examples of applicants who must be
refused visas are:

Persons with certain
communicable diseases of public health significance, such as
tuberculosis;

Terrorists, subversives,
members of a totalitarian party and former Nazi war criminals;

Persons who are likely to
become public charges in the United States;

Those who have used fraud or
other illegal means to enter the United States or help others
enter the United States; or

Those who are ineligible for
citizenship.

Of course, they won't take your word
that you have a clean sheet. So they will ask you to apply for a
Certificate of No Criminal Conviction from the Hong Kong
Police Force. This certificate will be sent directly to the U.S.
Consulate General so that you have no opportunity to commit forgery.

So the Act is saying that you cannot
be denied a visa because you have a police record showing convictions
for unlawful assembly, obstruction of police business, disruption of
public order, etc.

But you have to be very careful about
the details here.

First of all, this Act covers only
those who resided in Hong Kong in 2014.

If 'resided' means 'inhabiting', then
if you were studying overseas in 2014 but came back in 2015 to join
the fight for democracy, you are out of luck.

If 'resided' means holding the right
of abode, you can be overseas in 2014 the whole year and you
will still be covered.

Secondly, you are forgiven for
"arrest, detention or other adverse government action" during "your
participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong
Kong's electoral process."

So the activity must be related to
Hong Kong's electoral process. The 2014 Occupy Central/Umbrella
Movement/Umbrella Revolution is about "genuine universal suffrage", so
it is covered. The 2015 Lunar New Year's riot in Mong Kok is said by
some of the leaders to be about the fight for the rights of unlicensed
street vendors. So this Fishball Revolution is not covered.

The activity must also be about
nonviolent protest. There were a number of violent episodes during the
2014 Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement/Umbrella Revolution. So if you
were convicted of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer in
any of the actions, you are not covered. Other leaders of the 2016
Lunar New Year's Day riot in Mong Kok said that it was a rally for
Edward Leung's Legislative Council by-election campaign. So that is
part of the electoral process. But they ripped bricks from the
pavement to throw at the police. So this was a violent activity.
Therefore you are not covered.

This is going to be a lot of work for
the US Consulate General staff. The Certificate of No Criminal
Conviction is simply going to list conviction of "Unlawful Assembly"
which took place on a certain date at a certain location, the date of
the court trial and the sentence. It won't list whether the activity
was violent or not, and it won't say whether this was a protest that
was part of the electoral process. The staff will have to do their own
investigation.

- Here is a case in which two
individuals were convicted by a court "as a result of their
participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong
Kong's electoral process."

Radical
lawmaker Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung was jailed for seven days
on Monday for staging a protest directed at Chief Secretary
Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor during a school debating event. He
was immediately freed on HK$4,000 cash bail, pending appeal.
His co-defendant, People Power activist Fast Beat Tam Tak-chi,
also received a seven-day jail sentence, suspended for 12
months.

The pair
had argued that the charge against them breached their right
to express themselves freely during a peaceful assembly in a
public place.

But that
was rejected in Eastern Court, which found both Leung, 60, and
Tam, 44, had intentionally obstructed, disturbed, interrupted
or annoyed other persons who were lawfully using the Queen
Elizabeth Stadium during the 30th Sing Tao Inter-School
Debating Competition on May 15 last year.

Acting
principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing said the protest was
staged in a unique environment, unlike street protests where
people could just leave if they did not want to be disturbed.

Acting
principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing said the protest was
staged in a unique environment, unlike street protests where
people could just leave if they did not want to be disturbed.
This case involved an event that was planned for more than a
year, To said.

He said
there was a need to safeguard the constitutional rights of the
civic centres lawful users  to peaceful assembly and freedom
of expression  as the law specifically protected their
privileged use of the venue.

Leung and Tam, he said, could
have staged their protest on another occasion while the
parents and students attending the event had only one
opportunity to enjoy their rights on the 30th anniversary of
the competition and they had clearly showed their disagreement
at the protest. Leung took a deep breath as To delivered the
verdict while Tam did not react. Under the Civic Centres
Regulation, the offence is punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and
one-month imprisonment. Neither defendant took the stand nor
called any witnesses in their favour.

The
court heard that organisers had begun preparations for the
event the summer before. It was attended by 2,424 students,
parents, teachers and guests including Lam, former Bar
Association chairman Paul Shieh Wing-tai and then-director of
information services Patrick Nip Tak-kuen.

Dozens
of protesters began shouting, chanting slogans, waving banners
and throwing paper balls when Lam was escorted into the venue,
and they repeatedly disrupted speeches by Shieh and Nip. Lams
speech was eventually cancelled and she left the venue early.
The commotion lasted for 30 minutes.

Sing Tao
reported it to police a few days later and filed a civil suit
in June last year, demanding more than HK$1.5 million from the
duo and district councillor Mandy Tam Heung-man, also from
People Power. The company is also seeking an injunction to bar
the trio from its future events

Does the
United States want to judge that such behavior is acceptable? In
the United States?

-
Senator Tom Cotton was quoted in the press release: "Hong
Kong's unique identity and traditions of liberty, rule of law,
and a market-based economy can be a model for a China that is
a more productive player on the international stage." So when
a court found these individuals guilty in accordance with the
law, the United States want to vacate the verdict for their
own purposes. What does that do for rule of law in Hong Kong?
Does the United States advocate rule of man with special
treatment for "pro-democracy" protestors.

- In the
case of Leung Kwok-hung, he has 16 prior convictions involving
27 charges. But Leung merely obstructed, disturbed,
interrupted or annoyed 2,000+ people in a non-violent manner,
so he goes free under the proposed Hong Kong Human Rights and
Democracy Act.

- If
he did that to an American high school debate competition,
he would have been beaten to death by the parents.

- Remember the
Mariel boatlift? The American government kept saying that it
is the beacon of freedom and democracy for all the suppressed people
of Cuba. So the Cuban government announced that any Cuban who wanted
to leave could do so by boat from the port of Mariel. Eventually
almost 125,000 Cubans left in 1,700 boats which overwhelmed the US
Coast Guard. At first, the American government felt elated at this
shower of love. The situation changed when it was discovered the Cuban
government had taken the opportunity to sending away their hardened
criminal-prisoners and mental asylum patients to America. Eventually,
2.2% of the Marielitos were classified as serious or violent criminals
under U.S. law and denied citizenship.